National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill [HL]

Report received.
	Clause 1 [Enforcement notices]:

Baroness Miller of Hendon: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
	"(2B) No notice under subsection (2) or (2A) shall be served in respect of any pay reference period more than six years before that date of the service of the notice.""

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I must confess that I am not surprised to find myself having to take up the time of the House by bringing back this extraordinarily simple, wholly constructive, non-political and uncontroversial amendment. As your Lordships know, the Government have adopted a totally Pavlovian, rejectionist attitude to any amendment that I may propose. In the almost six years since that disastrous day when I moved from that side of the Dispatch Box to this, there has never, to the best of my recollection, been an occasion when the Government readily conceded that I had a valid point. That is not to say that I have not won amendments; nor is it to say that they have not finally conceded—at the tenth minute of the ninth hour, if you know what I mean. But the truth is that it has never been easy. The concession was never given quickly or smilingly. I am not saying that it is down to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. I am very hopeful that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, filling in for the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, will show a different attitude from today onwards.
	When all else has failed and no logical argument could possibly be mustered, Ministers have always fallen back on the line that, "This amendment is not necessary". The National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill, an amending Bill, is necessary because of the way in which the original legislation has been interpreted in practice. As noble Lords will know, a tribunal decided that an employee who left his employment could not retrospectively gain his lost minimum wage. The Bill, and the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 itself, commit the,
	"Officer acting for the purposes of the Act",
	to make a retrospective order in relation to any underpayment of the national minimum wage for an unlimited period of time. That is not a fanciful interpretation of the legislation. It is the plain wording of the 1998 Act, which does not place any limitation on how far back the order can go.
	Noble Lords who have sat through these debates will recall that, on Second Reading, I said that I would table an amendment to this effect because the retrospection allowed in relation to notices seemed unlimited. However, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said, "No, the notice can go back only three years, so you needn't worry", but I knew that he was wrong. Subsequently, after our debate on Second Reading, he wrote to me and said:
	"There is no limit in the legislation on how far back enforcement notices may be taken".
	That could not be clearer. However, when we discussed this amendment in Committee and I thought that the Government would immediately accept it, what was the Minister's argument? As usual, he began by saying:
	"in practice, we believe that the amendment is not needed".
	He went on to claim that the fact that employers are required to hold records for only three years would mean that,
	"the Revenue would find it difficult to pursue cases that went back further than three years".—[Official Report, 9/1/03; cols. 1103-04.]
	It may be difficult, but it is not impossible.
	The Minister himself readily accepted my argument that there are means of proving underpayment other than the employer's records; for example, with payslips kept by the employee himself. He admitted to the Committee that two routes were open to the employee and the enforcement officer in respect of any alleged underpayment. The first is the ordinary civil courts, where any claim would be subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act 1980. The Minister told the Committee that he agreed that that legislation would apply. That limitation restricts claims for any simple civil debt to a period of just six years.
	However, as the Minister admitted in his letter to me, and as he admitted to the Committee, under the tribunal procedure, claims could go back much longer. He said that,
	"it seems likely that few cases . . . will go back further than six years".
	A few cases? One case would be too many.
	There is an unacceptable anomaly. It would be so easy just to accept it and allow the two procedures to operate side by side. Parliament should not, however, be creating a two-tier system of justice whereby people can get more in one court than in another.
	I am sure that the Minister's obstinate refusal to accept my amendment, the principle of which he told your Lordships he agreed with, is due to a total misunderstanding of what it actually says. I say that with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, especially because he is not here. In Committee, he said:
	"I . . . think it would be wrong to create a position in which officers using the tribunals route could not go back as far as the workers themselves could".—[Official Report, 9/1/03; cols. 1103-04.]
	The amendment provides for absolute parity between the two routes. That is why I say that he must have misunderstood the amendment—which provides six years' retrospection regardless of the forum, court or tribunal, that the employee chooses.
	There is currently a discrepancy whereby an applicant to a tribunal can in theory present a grievance dating back 10 or 20 years. In a court, however, the applicant would be bound by the statute of limitations which allows only six years. The situation is a nonsense. I am sure that, this time, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will agree. I beg to move.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, clearly feels aggrieved that as regards minimum wage and employment legislation it is very difficult for her to persuade the Government to accept her amendment. She seems to believe that some prejudice is held by the Government against her and that if someone else produced the amendment perhaps it would be accepted by them. I cannot speak for the Minister who, as we know, can speak most ably for himself.
	On this occasion, as on so many others, we will not be supporting the noble Baroness, not because we have any prejudice against her—indeed, how could one possibly have that?—but simply because on this, as on many other matters, we disagree with her.
	First, I am not sure that it is a sound thesis on which she bases the amendment. Why should an individual holding a number of payslips, and who has become aware for the first time that he or she has been underpaid, be artificially restricted in the remedies available to him or her? Why should they be so restricted?
	Secondly, as a former lawyer I am always extremely dubious of legislation attempting arbitrarily to interfere with limitation periods. I do not wish to anticipate what the Minister has to say, but I believe that the Bill should remain as drafted on this point and that it should not artificially attempt to interfere with the limitation period.

Lord Blackwell: My Lords, can the Minister say how the time period relates to claiming back payment for benefits? Obviously, a number of recipients of the national minimum wage may well be recipients of benefits or be entitled to benefits. I wonder what is the Government's obligation as regards people claiming past benefits and how that would appear in relation to parity with their ability to claim on employers.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I remind the House of what the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, said in Committee about the practical effects of this amendment. He explained that there are two ways of pursuing a failure to comply with an enforcement notice. He said that the first is to pursue it through the county courts, but in such cases the Limitation Act 1980 already applies. It is only possible to recover arrears for a period of up to six years from the date of each underpayment.
	Almost all cases brought by the Revenue have used that route and they are already subject to a six-year restriction. It is possible to proceed through the employment tribunals. It does not happen very often because the claim has to be made within three months, which is a difficult limitation. It means in practical terms that that route has hardly ever been used by the Revenue. The vast majority of cases can only refer back six years before the date on which proceedings are brought. Although in theory some cases could be taken further back, in practice that is extremely unlikely. I remind the House that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, pointed out that employers are required only to keep wage records for three years. Therefore, if records are to be kept for a greater period, which is relevant to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, the employer would have to keep records going back further.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is right. There is a difference between very rarely and never. We have thought about the matter again. We believe that it would be right in practice to provide for something similar to what the noble Baroness wants. It cannot be the amendment before us because it has technical problems, but it will be one which says roughly what the noble Baroness wants. We hope to have it drafted in time for Third Reading.
	I am sorry that that proposal disappoints the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. You cannot win them all. The very purity, if I may put it that way, of the argument put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that even if it hardly ever happens—and it could not for a number of years because the national minimum wage relates only as far back as April 1999—ultimately tips the balance.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, this really is a success! I began by saying that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would find a way around the problem. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, is on the wrong side again, but what can I do about that? We shall look very carefully at what the Government bring forward at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 2 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Baroness Miller of Hendon: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (2).

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am speechless, really. As noble Lords know, the first amendment was designed to stop employers having to deal with someone who wants to refer to a matter which goes back over a long period.
	This second amendment is very much for the benefit of the employee. I am totally even-handed on this side of the House. This amendment is intended to remove from the Bill the provision that postpones the operation of the Act until two months after it is passed. When I proposed this amendment in Committee the Minister argued that he accepted that it was intended to be helpful. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, said that he had the greatest sympathy with me for wanting to ensure that the employee was entitled to receive his money immediately and not have to wait two months. But the noble Lord had checked with the Cabinet Office, which said it was the custom that the provision did not apply until after two months. Therefore, as a man of custom—he told me this outside the Chamber but indicated more or less the same inside the Chamber—he did not want to change the custom if it was not necessary to do so. What he actually said in the Chamber was that,
	"Bills commence two months after Royal Assent, unless there are pressing reasons for bringing the Bill into force more rapidly".—[Official Report, 9/1/03; Col. 1105.]
	At that time I described the amendment as "probing". I wanted to see what possible explanation there could be for making an employee wait two months. When I argued the case in Committee—strongly—I made the point that in any event there was a mistake in the original drafting and therefore it ought to be rectified and enacted immediately.
	I took it upon myself to check this matter in the Library. Francis Bennion, in his Statutory Interpretation (4th edition, 2002)—it is therefore up to date—said,
	"The commencement date may be the date of passing of the Act, or a date specified or indicated in the Act, or a date specified in a commencement order made by a Minister or other functionary".
	So, although the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said that it was the custom, that interpretation says something a little different. It says that it could be the date of the passing of the Act; it could be a date specified or indicated in the Act; or it could be a date specified in the commencement order.
	Interestingly enough, an investigation carried out in 1979 by a Statute Law Society working party looked at 105 public general Acts passed between 1st January 1978 and April 1979—a period of 14 months—to ascertain when Acts usually come into force. They found that 41 Acts came into effect on the exact date of the passing of the Act; 12 Acts came into force on a date specified in the Act; and 14 Acts came into force on the expiry of a period of one, two or three months after passing. I understand that the Minister may say that that investigation was carried out in 1978 and 1979 and that the custom now is that Acts commence two months after Royal Assent, as he said in Committee, but I asked the Library to check a little further.
	The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, made the point in regard to my first amendment that employees should be able to claim their entitlement and to have it backdated, however far. Equally, I am sure that he would not want employees to have to wait for their money if it is not necessary.
	The Education Act 2002 was enacted immediately; the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act was enacted immediately; the Armed Forces Act immediately; and the Freedom of Information Act immediately. Those Acts were enacted in 2000–01. The Access to Justice Act was enacted immediately, as was the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998. The Minister may say that there were pressing reasons for those Acts to be enacted immediately and that we can forget custom in those circumstances, but I believe that an employee who is underpaid and wants to claim his money back now should be able to do so. I beg to move.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, I do not always disagree with the noble Baroness. On this occasion I agree with her.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, again, we cannot all win. Of course the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is right. It is possible for an Act to come into force on Royal Assent—and that often happens—but the established procedure is that unless there are vital reasons for bringing a Bill into force more rapidly, we give those concerned with the Bill—in this case it is both business and employees—a reasonable opportunity to see and understand the implications of a new Act before it comes into force. That is the only reason for delaying it for two months.
	However, there is another reason for not worrying about this Bill being brought into force two months later—and that is that it allows enforcement officers to issue notices in respect of pay periods ending before it comes into force. There is therefore no disadvantage whatever in that two-month delay. Past money owed to workers can be recovered whether the Bill comes into force, say, in March or May of this year. Under those circumstances, and in light of the fact that it is true that this is a conservative kind of argument—the Cabinet Office advised us that this was the right thing to do and we have to go back to the Attorney-General and Legislative Programme Committee to effect a change—and particularly in view of the fact that nobody loses by this delay, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, after such a kind explanation, how could I be so ungracious? As long as I have the Minister's absolute reassurance that the delay will not interfere with an employee's rights— I am sure that is correct—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 2, line 2, at end insert—
	"(3A) But, notwithstanding section 20(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30) (construction of references to other enactments), the reference in section 1 to section 19 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (c. 39) shall be taken not to include a reference to that section as applied by section 3A of the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949 (c. 30)."

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before I move Amendment No. 3 I should apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, for not responding to his point on benefits. In fact I cannot respond; I do not know the answer. However, I do not believe it to be relevant because the issue in this Bill concerns records of employment. That does not necessarily apply to benefits. However, I shall write to the noble Lord on that issue.
	Amendment No. 3 is a technical amendment dealing with devolved powers which have been requested—too late for the Committee stage—by the Scottish Executive in order to exempt agriculture in Scotland from the provisions of the Bill. Employment is a reserved matter while agriculture is devolved for Scotland and Northern Ireland. In addition, the agricultural minimum wage has been in place throughout the United Kingdom for more than 50 years.
	The way the present legislation works is that Schedule 2 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 made a number of amendments to the Agricultural Wages Act (Scotland) 1949, to incorporate some of the provisions of the national minimum wage into the agricultural minimum wage. It is clear that the operation of the agricultural minimum wage in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive.
	It had two options. The first was to propose a Sewel Motion, which would have allowed Westminster to legislate on this matter even though it is devolved. Before Christmas the Scottish Office informed us on behalf of the Executive that that is what it planned to do. That is why, when we presented the Bill to the House, we covered the agricultural minimum wage in Scotland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom.
	However, the Executive has now decided that it does not wish to propose a Sewel Motion and intends to lay parallel independent legislation covering Scottish agriculture in the Edinburgh Parliament. It has asked us to amend our Bill to exclude Scottish agriculture from its scope.
	It is not a pretty amendment. I do not claim it is. Anything which has to rely on disregarding matters in the Interpretation Act will never be beautiful. But, in simple terms, it ensures that the provisions in the Bill will not be carried across into the Agricultural Wages Act (Scotland) 1949. It does not affect the existing structure of the national minimum wage or agricultural wages legislation. All it means is that the Scottish Executive will need to introduce parallel legislation to tackle the difficulties we have encountered and to carry across the provisions of this Bill into Scottish agriculture.
	The situation is the same in Northern Ireland. But while the Stormont Assembly is temporarily suspended, the Department of Trade and Industry has confirmed with the Northern Ireland Office that it is content for the Bill to cover agriculture in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I want to thank the Minister for the courtesy of giving me advance notice of the amendment. We certainly do not object to it, but I want to ask him one question. We note the assurance in the letter, and in what he has now said to the House, that the Scottish Parliament will pass independent parallel legislation. However, can I take it that the word parallel means identical, so that employees in Scotland have exactly the same provisions? That is all that I need to know. It might be parallel but offer them something different.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will inform the House what the agricultural minimum wage is in Scotland. My impression is that it is a good deal higher.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, it would be useful to have some clarification on the record, if not today perhaps in correspondence, about exactly where the line is drawn between the degree of devolvement and the compatibility with the original legislation, so that there is no difference. Intuitively, the answer is reasonably clear, but it would be useful to have some clarification on the record.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall deal first with the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. No, I cannot give an assurance that the legislation will be identical. That is a matter for the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament. If they want to do it in a different way, or even if they want to do something different, that is their privilege. That is the meaning of devolution.
	I do not know the answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, as to whether agricultural minimum wages are higher. I am not sure that I should apologise for that, as it is a devolved matter on which I am not supposed to be informed, let alone responsible.
	I agree with my noble friend Lord Lea that there should be the utmost clarity in what matters are covered, reserved and devolved. I do not believe that there is any lack of clarity. I think that the Scotland Act provision that employment matters be reserved and agriculture be devolved, combined with the provision for either separate legislation or a Sewell resolution, covers any conceivable confusion, but if I am wrong I shall write to my noble friend on that point.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [HL]

Report received.
	Clause 1 [Consultation with Board]:

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1).

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4.
	I shall begin briefly by outlining my overall objection to this dishonourable Bill, an objection that colours my attitude to each and every element that we will consider today.
	The Bill is devised in a form that is intended to hand over undue influence, if not control, to an element in our society that has sought to undermine the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. That is Sinn Fein/IRA, to which new Labour and the Prime Minister felt obliged to capitulate at Weston Park, at the same time as they pretended to give consideration to the overall interests of society in Northern Ireland.
	Ordinary society in Northern Ireland feels that all the comprise that it made to accommodate everyone in the political process is worthless. It feels that promises made publicly again and again by the Prime Minister are worthless. Also, it feels that when we get to the stage of relegating the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to bit-player, as the clause does, that makes policing and the rule of law a charade.
	Lessons have not been learned from the lack of substantive contributions made by Sinn Fein/IRA to the Mitchell principles. Have we by any chance forgotten the Mitchell principles? I have to ask the Minister what has changed or is about to change. Will he tell the House whether, and if so when, we will reach that defining moment when the paramilitary Sinn Fein/IRA disarms and disbands? If I have a satisfactory answer to that question, I and others may be able to view the Bill in a different light from that in which I presently do.
	For those who may presume to tell me that Sinn Fein/IRA is not the only paramilitary grouping in Northern Ireland, I simply say that I am hardly unaware of that. However, the Bill is not intended to create inequitable privileges for loyalists, and neither am I. The Bill is intended to create inequitable privileges for Sinn Fein/IRA and it alone.
	Did the Minister really mean what he said to me at Second Reading when we mentioned what would happen in comparable circumstances in Surrey? He drew attention to the fact that I had asked why criminals should be allowed on DPPs when they would not in Surrey. He told me:
	"The answer is that Surrey has not had the agonising history of Northern Ireland".—[Official Report, 16/12/02; col. 508.]
	In other words, there is not the pressure on policing anywhere else in the United Kingdom that necessitates, as in the clause, the relegation of the professional side of policing to something right at the bottom of the pile. I have been in this Parliament for 20 years. I know the value of the democratic process and I subscribe to it, but I also know that it will suffer if we relegate those responsible—the guardians of law and order, the enforcers of the law—to the bottom of the pile. That is why I suggest that we leave out subsections (1) and (2). I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should point out that, if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 2 or 3.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not apologise in the slightest way for giving the obvious reminder to noble Lords that the history of Surrey has not been the same as the history of Northern Ireland.
	The noble Lord said that the clause relegated the Chief Constable to the role of bit-player. That is an absurdity, if I may say so. The noble Lord knows that I am not criticising him personally, because we have the best of personal relationships, but it is simply not an accurate reflection of what the clause does. He says that the forces of law and order are being put at the bottom of the pile, which is simply not realistic.
	I will repeat briefly what I said at length in Committee about what the clause does. It reflects a small but important change in the balance of the relationship over policing between the Secretary of State and the Policing Board. The clause does not give the board a veto over the Secretary of State's objectives. We may need to return to that point on Amendments Nos. 3 and 6. It requires the Secretary of State to try to ensure that he and the board work collectively and harmoniously to develop policing objectives.
	We think it right to make those changes to Sections 24 and 27 of the 2000 Act. The Patten report was particularly critical of the previous arrangements. The simple, single effect of Amendments Nos. 1 and 4, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Rogan, would be to maintain the status quo. For the reasons I have set out, that would be inappropriate. I am not in a position to, nor do I wish to, accept the amendments.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, there can be no doubt that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and I are opposed on this issue. None the less, it is not an appropriate time to discuss the matter. I do not promise that we shall not return to it at Third Reading, but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 1, line 12, after "Constable" insert "with a view to obtaining his agreement to the proposed objectives or revision"

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 2 and 5, which are grouped, would ensure that the Secretary of State would consult with the Chief Constable,
	"with a view to obtaining his agreement",
	before making changes to, or determining, long-term policing objectives or issuing or revising a code of practice.
	It is appropriate that a working partnership be consolidated between the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State in addition to that between the board and the Secretary of State. These amendments would put consultation with the Chief Constable on an equal footing with consultation with the board. Two different relationships in this triangle must be developed. My amendment tries to balance them in a way that is probably correct.
	I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for his explanation in Grand Committee. But these amendments are concerned entirely with long-term objectives as a long-term proposal. The noble and learned Lord also stated that the police Bill had a different shade of nuance from the police Act 2000. What has changed since the 2000 Act was passed? What are the practical implications of such a change? What is the difference between consulting and consulting,
	"with a view to obtaining . . . agreement"?
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, for sharing his interpretation of "long-term objectives". He said that they have more to do with political issues than operational ones, and that the Chief Constable then interprets such objectives in an operational manner. Although it is Northern Ireland we are discussing, that seems a little bogus. There is something wrong in that approach. I shall be interested to hear the interpretation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal of "long-term objectives", which I understand to be the justification for the amendments to the police Act 2000, in Clause 1.
	My key points are that the balance of relationships should be maintained, bearing in mind that for "Secretary of State" we could, I hope, soon be reading "First Minister and Deputy First Minister". There must be a balance in the relationships between the board, which is quasi-political, the Secretary of State, who is obviously political, and the Chief Constable, the operational person responsible for the security, safety and policing of the Province. A consensus on the long-term objectives should be reached between the three different groups. My amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State would consult the Chief Constable,
	"with a view to obtaining his agreement",
	on the "long-term objectives", to use the words of the noble and learned Lord in Grand Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, underpins, perhaps in less trenchant terms, exactly what I said earlier. His amendment gives the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal an opportunity at least to concede a provision that simply intimates that consultation with the Chief Constable will be given the same consideration as consultation with the board. It would alleviate my problem of the Chief Constable's relegation to a position of secondary importance in the consultation process. The qualification proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, would help to alleviate our difficulty.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Glentoran because the practical workability of the arrangements is important. Unless, agreement is reached between the three parties—the Secretary of State, the board and the Chief Constable—their relationship will be difficult. It is, after all, the Chief Constable who will have to work out the strategy to meet these objectives. I am sure that the last thing the noble and learned Lord wants is difficult relationships in this area of activity.
	I see no reason why the words,
	"with a view to obtaining his agreement to the proposed objectives or revision"
	could be disagreed with. Amendment No. 2 does not say that the Secretary of State must obtain the Chief Constable's agreement. He must consult only,
	"with a view to obtaining his agreement".
	That gives a good deal of leeway for proper dialogue between the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable on the practical workability of the arrangements.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I, too, support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I wish to inject a long-term view. So far, the Policing Board is working very well. It seems to be learning and working as an admirable institution. But the political long-term intention is that Sinn Fein should also join the Policing Board. That would change the chemistry of the board, because Sinn Fein's views on policing are totally different from everyone else's. I will raise only one of the obvious problems with that. The Chief Constable will have to operate within the arrangements decided, and it will be more important than ever that his relationship with the Secretary of State should be as strong as possible. Otherwise, the arrangements will not work.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board. However, I stress that my remarks, unless I say otherwise, are as an individual on the board.
	I support the amendment because "consult" means very different things to different types and groups of people. All too often, when politicians talk about consulting, they mean dictating. In certain debates and dealings with the Government, at least in this Chamber, many believe that when they say they have explored every avenue of consultation and talked to everybody, they mean that they have informed people.
	The Secretary of State is a political figure, therefore there is no handicap in including the word "agreement". The Government cannot simply circulate a sheet of paper or inform bodies verbally of a decision and then say that they have consulted. A two-way process is needed. On that basis, I cannot see what danger would be imposed on the Government by stressing that negotiations, the passing of information and consulting are part of a two-way process, not a diktat.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for so carefully explaining the amendments. I remind your Lordships of the present position.
	Under Section 24 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000—the present statute in other words:
	"The Secretary of State may determine, and from time to time, revise, long term objectives for the policing of Northern Ireland".
	Section 24(2) states:
	"Before determining or revising any objectives under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult—
	(a) the Board;
	(b) the Chief Constable; and
	(c) such other persons as he thinks appropriate".
	That is the present requirement. If the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, is troubled about what consultation means, that is the present legal situation.
	The noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Glentoran, asked about the nature of a long-term objective. Paragraph 6.16 of the Patten report refers to objectives in terms of a three to five-year span.
	I sympathise with the thrust of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I should like to explain, briefly, how I see the distinction. I said on a number of occasions in Grand Committee and again today that the clause is designed to allow for a slight adjustment—the different nuance I mentioned—which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, cited to me. It is a slight adjustment of power towards the board. The critical point is this. There is a distinction in this tripartite policing relationship between the role of the Chief Constable on the one hand and the board and the Secretary of State on the other. The latter have the responsibility for setting the strategic direction of policing in Northern Ireland. That is their broad purpose.
	The duty of the Chief Constable is importantly, even if only subtly, different. That duty is the operational management of the police. His duty and obligation is to implement the objectives set by the board and the Secretary of State. That is a qualitatively different job. I am happy to say as firmly as I can that it is not the intention of the Government that policing objectives should be foisted on the Chief Constable with no regard to his wishes or views. I was glad to hear the endorsement of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that the board is settling well and working well with a very new Chief Constable. That is a common view.
	The purpose of the consultation is to listen to the views of the Chief Constable, have regard to them and pay careful attention to them. But there are the distinctions to which I pointed. Whether your Lordships agree with that description of difference is a matter for your Lordships. In my mind, it is a different quality of purpose and role and that is why we have this slight readjustment. I do not pretend that it is not intended to be a readjustment. I have said so on many occasions.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that response. There is still some difference between us. I have a certain amount of sympathy with his explanation of the role of the police board and the Secretary of State in setting long-term objectives together, as allowed for in the legislation. I also accept that it is the role of the Chief Constable to devolve the strategy and operational plans for carrying out this long-term strategy. Looking ahead four or five years or even longer, what a difference there may be in personalities such as the First Minister, Deputy First Minister, Secretary of State, certain members of the police board and the Chief Constable. We have had problems in the past. There were disagreements within that quorum of people during the 1980s and 1990s, which caused the government at the time considerable pain. I hope that by not accepting my amendment the Government do not store up trouble for the future in this vitally important area. I shall think further about the matter and take advice before Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
	"(2B) Nothing in subsection (2) shall prevent the Secretary of State from determining or revising objectives under this section.""

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, Amendment No. 6 is grouped with Amendment No. 3. I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. It is more by way of a probing amendment to seek an assurance from the noble and learned Lord. This Bill is designed to accommodate Sinn Fein/IRA on the Policing Board and on district policing partnerships. That is the primary objective of the Bill, based on what happened at Weston Park.
	I have experienced the mercurial nature of Sinn Fein. Last year, on my own district council, we had a Sinn Fein chairman. He was an excellent chairman. Everything went absolutely tickety-boo, as he would say, in terms of council business. This year, we have an SDLP chairman. The former chairman now sits down the chamber. I have seen him rise with a fistful of papers to fling them in the face of the SDLP chairman. That is the mercurial nature of Sinn Fein. If this Bill goes through, that could be the behaviour of Sinn Fein on the board and on partnerships.
	The Secretary of State has to consult with a view to obtaining agreement to the proposed objectives or revision in terms of codes of practice. If that is not possible, how do we ensure that the business of policing and the respective roles of the Secretary of State and Chief Constable are not hindered to the detriment of society? I believe that by adding our Amendments Nos. 3 and 6 there would be enshrined in legislation a means whereby we could overcome this difficulty. I shall listen with interest to what the noble and learned Lord has to say on this matter. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall respond in the same spirit as the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. I will be able to reassure the noble Lord. The approach encapsulated in the clause is that it is for the Secretary of State to consult the board with a view to obtaining its agreement. I am quite sure that the Secretary of State and his successors will make every effort to do so. However, I think the nub of the noble Lord's question was about what would happen if there was a disagreement. I can give an assurance; the situation is quite plain. In the unlikely event that no agreement is arrived at, the Secretary of State's powers remain intact. In other words, the board has no veto.
	The noble Lord's amendments are not needed; they do not affect the position. I hope that I have given him the assurance as plainly as he would have wished.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that unequivocal assurance. Where there is an unequivocal assurance, it is not my intention—or the intention of those associated with me—to frustrate or hold up the Bill. The discussion has been useful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 4, I must inform the House that, if it is agreed, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.

[Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 not moved.]
	Clause 2 [Board's policing objectives]:
	[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
	Clause 3 [Public meetings of the Board]:

Lord Smith of Clifton: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 2, line 16, leave out subsection (1).

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 stipulated that the board meet 10 times a year. The Bill reduces that to eight times a year. The reduction in the number of public meetings of the board each year is a departure from Patten.
	In Committee, the Minister explained that those changes had been made at the specific request of the Policing Board, as it wanted greater flexibility over when it could hold meetings. However, that flexibility can be achieved under subsection (2), which removes the time limit on the holding of public meetings. The 2000 Act already compromised Patten on that point by reducing the minimum number of meetings from 12 to 10. To reduce it further—to eight—would be a retrograde step for transparency and public accountability. Flexibility is not a good enough reason for the change. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's concern, but all that we are doing here is setting a different minimum. It is important to recognise that that is all that is proposed. I return to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth: the board is settling in well and learning through experience. The board specifically asked us to put the minimum at eight.
	As it happens, the public meetings are not well attended. I cannot think why. The board needs to have many private meetings, for obvious reasons that we all understand. Occasionally, with the pressure of private meeting business and the squalls that sometimes come up over Christmas or other holiday periods, the board finds it logistically difficult to comply with the statutory minimum.
	The board, which is developing its own authority, has made the request. Its judgment should be trusted, and we want to accede to the request. I hope that it will help if I stress that it is not the board's intention—nor the Government's—to do anything to undermine its accountability or, in particular, its transparency, the aspect referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind the reassurance that I have sought to give and not to press the amendment.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I do not entirely accept that reasons of logistics and so on should prevent the board holding a minimum of public meetings a year. Thankfully, the apathy of the public, who do not attend, means that things are going well. When things are not going so well, people should have the opportunity to attend public meetings.
	I shall not press the amendment at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 8 [Reports of Chief Constable]:

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Leave out Clause 8.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, we return to the battle that was fought long and hard in Grand Committee about Clauses 8 and 9. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 do virtually the same thing. The nub of the argument comes later, with Amendment No. 35 to Clause 19, but there are more ways than one of discussing the matter.
	I fail to see why it is necessary to interfere with the operational responsibility and independence of the Chief Constable. That is what the clause does. What has changed since the 2000 Act? Nothing has changed, other than the fact that there have been some off-the-record agreements at a place called Weston Park that have nothing to do with the Belfast agreement and nothing to do with Patten.
	The clause will reduce the grounds on which the Chief Constable can refer a request for information to the Secretary of State. That is a particularly important matter in Northern Ireland where the maintenance of the operational independence of the chief officer of police is such a sensitive issue. Under the 2000 Act, the Chief Constable is not allowed a veto over the board on whether a report on a matter specified by the board should be made. The amendments to be made to that Act by the Bill will be damaging.
	I fear that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal will say that he does not foresee a situation in which our fears would be relevant. I cannot agree. Friendly as we are most of the time, we disagreed about that in Committee, and I am concerned that we may fall out again today. Forcing a Chief Constable to report to a board in a way that was likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders must be wrong in any part of the kingdom.
	In Committee, I asked the noble and learned Lord why the Government felt it necessary to make such an extraordinary change and what had changed so dramatically in Northern Ireland between 2000 and January 2003. I was not satisfied with his explanations then. He may be able to help me today, but I am not optimistic. I beg to move.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, nowadays, in serious fraud cases, the courts make provision to lighten the load of a jury by laying on electronic recall of complicated documents and projecting the results onto screens all around the court. That makes it easier for the jury to follow what is said to them, however complex. I wish that something of the same could have been made available while we discussed this amendment. It would make it easier for people who have not been initiated—"blooded" might be another word—by a discussion of at least an hour in Grand Committee to follow the way in which the Bill changes an important part of the law. Its importance was conceded by the noble and learned Lord in Grand Committee when he dealt with the grounds for the amendment with his customary care and accuracy. Because I have kept quiet so far this morning, perhaps I might be indulged in explaining what is done at a little length.
	The matter can be put simply—it has to be without the kind of aid to the drafting changes that are involved—but nonetheless accurately. The context is the duty of the Chief Constable, as explained by my noble friend Lord Glentoran, to submit to the policing board reports whenever he is required by the board to do so. What kind of reports?—reports on any matter that the board may specify in its requirement. How soon must he comply?—within one month of any such requirement or—the noble and learned Lord placed great emphasis on this in his reply to me—any such longer period as may be agreed by the Chief Constable with the board. We will return to the significance of that provision.
	I referred to the present law. How old is it? It is not as much as three years old. It comes from Section 59 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. It may even be less than two years old, because Section 59 did not come into force on the passing of the Act but on some later date ordered by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that I have not been able to determine.
	This being about the policing of Northern Ireland and the history of Northern Ireland—not, as we have been reminded, of Surrey—some safeguards were included against the consequence of tensions between the policing board and the Chief Constable. We all are grateful for the fact that the board seems to be settling down and is working. It is greatly to our advantage that we have among us the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, as a member of that board, which adds enormously to our discussion of these matters.
	It was anticipated by Parliament a short time ago that tensions could arise between the Chief Constable and the board. I do not believe that it would be realistic to suppose that anticipation is entirely eliminated by the encouraging but early start that has been made. It was anticipated that those tensions could arise in such a way that the Chief Constable would be asked to report on a matter that he thought would be bound to contain information that ought not to be disclosed for one or more of four reasons. They are interests of national security; because the matter relates to an individual and is of a sensitive and personal character; it would or would be likely to prejudice proceedings which have been commenced in a court of law; or the critical reason for our discussion, in Section 59(3)(d) of the 2000 Act, which is that,
	"it would, or would be likely, to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders".
	The character of the safeguards are to be found in the same section. The Chief Constable can refer any such requirement to the Secretary of State, then it will be over to him. He can do what he likes. He can amend the requirement or override it. It is over to him and off the responsibility of the Chief Constable.
	I believe that it is still necessary that all such grounds should be open to the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, the Bill removes paragraph (d). The prosecution of offenders, and more especially perhaps the apprehension of crime, fall absolutely fair and square within the operational discretion of the Chief Constable. They are for him and him alone. I leave aside the later stages of prosecution, which of course become the responsibility of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
	I invite the House to agree that it is terribly important that the Chief Constable's operational discretion—the noble and learned Lord confirmed a moment ago that the operational management of the police is for the Chief Constable—should not be trenched apart. If one takes away the ground contained in Section 59(3)(d), one opens the way—it may not be readily foreseen but could be taken—to covert prevention of crime being apprehended in one particular or other and to not being able to prosecute some individual because the trail has been muddied or for some other reason.
	We fasten upon that because of its importance. In Grand Committee, the noble and learned Lord said:
	"This is a topic of great seriousness. It may be the most important aspect of our discussions at this stage".—[Official Report, 9/1/03; col. GC68.]
	When he first put forward the justification for what is being done, the noble and learned Lord drew attention to the point to which I have already alluded—that there can be postponement of the report if that is agreed between the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State. It has to be delivered in one month or such later time as may agreed. One hopes that there would be agreement, but the necessity for the safeguards that I have mentioned has been the anticipation that there may be such tensions between the Chief Constable and the policing board that a reasonable demand is not made or that reasonable agreement is not available. That in itself is not sufficient.
	The noble and learned Lord relies upon the Patten report and the implementation plan. He had to concede, not surprisingly, that the Patten report came before the 2000 Act, which contains the law that I have explained and which is now sought to be changed. The noble and learned Lord reminded us that the implementation report published in July 2001 stated that the Government intended to remove Section 59(3)(d)—claiming that that had effectively been recommended by Patten. What has changed? If, notwithstanding Patten's recommendation, it was thought necessary to include the safeguard in paragraph (d) in the 2000 Act, why by 2001 was it thought necessary to remove it? Who asked for that to be done?
	Even if the Government gave notice of their intention in the implementation plan of July 2001, surely there is some ground for reviewing that decision or at least for explaining the rationale. One should not regard the implementation plan in the way that the German general staff regarded the mobilisation plan in 1914—"Because it's in the plan, it can't be changed. The trains are moving and that's that". From time to time, there is just a little room for a slight accretion of wisdom as the years roll by—for example, after a manifesto has been published. We should not be bound hand and foot to the plan's implementation or otherwise.
	Therefore I respectfully agree with the noble and learned Lord when he says that this is probably the most important feature of the Bill and a matter of great seriousness. Of course we agree that the necessity for relying on the safeguard is unlikely and we all pray that it will never arise. But it might. What is the justification for removing something which Parliament, in its wisdom, thought it necessary to include as recently as three years ago?

Lord Hylton: My Lords, it might be helpful to the House if the noble and learned Lord could tell us how often Section 59 reports have been called for by the board; and how often the Chief Constable has felt obliged to rely on the safeguards at present built into subsection (3)?

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I return to my usual premise. Both the implementation plan and the Patten recommendations rested on the idea that Sinn Fein would support the new police arrangements, would join the board and would work with everyone. Sinn Fein has given clear indications that it wishes to destroy the present police; it has told its own young people not to join. That is not what was planned. In view of that, it is vital that the wise provisions of the 2000 Act are retained and we ensure that it is not possible for anyone who wishes to be a wrecker to wreck.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I want to enlarge on a very sensible query posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in terms of how many times the necessity has arisen for the Chief Constable to invoke Clause 8. In terms of this Bill, that is not relevant. We are looking at a situation where Sinn Fein is going to be given a leg up on to the Policing Board and where an entirely different set of circumstances will rule.
	If the safeguard is removed and if at the same time the number of people on the Policing Board who are able either to demand a report from the Chief Constable or to seek an inquiry is reduced, we shall have a greater need for the safeguard that is sought today. I simply make that point. We cannot judge on what is happening now, but we must judge on what is likely to happen when Sinn Fein is brought on to the board, as clearly the Government intend.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 10. At the previous stage of the Bill, we asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, where the proposal had come from and who had asked for it. He said only that it had appeared in the Patten review and in a few other documents. Clearly, if that had been the sole reason for the proposal, the Government would have followed the Patten review in the first place. They did not do so then and have now introduced it for a different reason.
	Who asked for the measure? The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, hit the nail on the head in saying that it was the SDLP and Sinn Fein. It is no secret within the Policing Board at present that the SDLP wishes to have the ability to inquire into everything. The SDLP is very much part of the working board, but there are one or two small issues that it likes to address from the point of view of its electorate. The SDLP wants to be able say to its electorate that it is part of a body which can investigate anything, anywhere, at any time, regardless of the consequences. Therefore nobody—for even good judicial and crime detection reasons—can intervene or put anything in the SDLP's way.
	It has asked for and questioned the first provision,
	"in the interests of national security".
	When the late director of the Security Services appeared at the Policing Board, the question was asked: why should we not look at national security? That suggestion clearly came from the SDLP and Sinn Fein wants that too. They have asked for Clause 8 and the Government are prepared to give way.
	Those to whom I have spoken, either in regard to policing or legal issues, have said that this can be only to the detriment of crime detection and prevention because the Chief Constable can refuse on the basis that the matter is already in court. The police may have a case which they have spent months investigating. Noble Lords will understand that cases cannot be investigated and reach court in less than a month, so this length of time is short enough. The Chief Constable can refer the matter to the Secretary of State and once it is under the jurisdiction of the court, it cannot be intervened with. However, before reaching court the whole case can be destroyed.
	On speaking to someone who wants the measure, I put forward the point—it does not matter whether we are referring to the Stormont spy case or anything else, but that is a particularly long-running case—that if information is required, it should be available. I asked what would happen if obtaining the information prejudiced the case. For all I know, a policeman or a spy at Stormont could be involved in the case. I asked what would happen if ultimately someone should be prosecuted but the case could not go ahead because the information obtained came from areas where the Chief Constable had no protection. I was told, "That that would not happen because we would not ask".
	The clause is nothing but a safety net. It is perfectly straightforward. It is obviously being used to buy Sinn Fein and to allow it and the SDLP to go to their electorate and say that they are on the board. I believe that the SDLP is talking purely to its electorate. Sinn Fein is talking to its electorate. We know what may happen at the next election; people may move to the extremes. The SDLP is being reasonable within the board, but it has backed this proposal because it knows that the Government are ready to sell out. That is totally unreasonable and totally impractical. I believe that it simply would not occur in any other jurisdiction one could imagine as being sane, sensible and working for peace.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, is right. First, he said explicitly that this probably is the issue that concerns your Lordships more than any other in the Bill. Secondly, he said implicitly that we are unlikely to agree. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, helpfully developed the issue—to give it a proper and appropriate hearing—to encompass the whole of the Clause 19 issues. It is probably helpful for me to respond in the same manner because if there is to be a Division it might as well be at this stage rather than when we come to Clause 19. The structure of the Act means that it is impossible to discuss these amendments without the wider issues of Clause 19.
	The answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is "none".
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, is right in saying that the proposal derives from paragraph 6.22 in the Pattern report, which states:
	"We recommend that the Policing Board should have the power to require the Chief Constable to report on any issue pertaining to the performance of his functions or those of the police service".
	I stress the next sentence.
	"The obligation to report should extend to explaining operational decisions. The grounds on which the Chief Constable might question this requirement should be strictly limited to issues such as those involving national security, sensitive personnel matters and cases before the courts".
	That, in fact—

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. The report refers to the Chief Constable explaining decisions. I accept that that relates to decisions which the Chief Constable has made; decisions that have been taken. But he may be asked for information during an investigation and for the reasons why decisions may be taken in the immediate future. In that respect, we are talking about two different things. Past decisions taken some time ago are different from decisions being taken at a particular moment during the conduct of an investigation.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I see the distinction, but I do not accept its validity. The Patten report is unambiguous on the matter:
	"The obligation to report should extend to explaining operational decisions".
	That does not state that the decisions have to belong to pre-history. Indeed, the Patten report puts the almost philosophical difference clearly, if not wholly to the satisfaction of everyone in this Chamber.
	The report continues:
	"One of the most difficult issues we have considered is the question of 'operational independence'".
	I remember that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, turned to this matter when we had our most illuminating discussion in Grand Committee. The report goes on:
	"Long consideration has led us to the view that the term 'operational independence' is itself a large part of the problem. In a democratic society, all public officials must be fully accountable to the institutions of that society for the due performance of their functions, and a chief of police cannot be an exception. No public official, including a chief of police, can be said to be 'independent'. Indeed, given the extraordinary powers conferred on the police, it is essential that their exercise is subject to the closest and most effective scrutiny possible".
	That is, perhaps, an almost philosophical difference of approach.
	The noble and learned Lord is right in saying that the implementation plan is dated 2001—post the Act. The report further states that,
	"the Policing Board should have the power, subject only to the same limitation set out in paragraph 6.22, to follow up any report from the Chief Constable by initiating an inquiry into any aspect of the police service or police conduct".
	That is what is now being done in the Bill. We have altered the four grounds and there are now three. They are set out in Clause 19 as:
	"(a) it is in the interests of national security;
	(b) the information is sensitive personnel information or information the disclosure of which would be likely to put an individual in danger;
	(c) the information would, or would be likely to, prejudice proceedings which have been commenced in a court of law".
	Therefore, if there is information the disclosure of which is likely to put an individual in danger, that is—and I use the term generally—protected.
	I do not believe that we are going to reach an agreement of minds here, partly because of the difference of fundamental approach. It is wrong to say that this is a Bill to benefit Sinn Fein; that it is a Sinn Fein benefit. In fact, the SDLP made representations during the passage of the first Bill stressing its discontent.
	There are the safeguards here. Section 59(2)(b) of the 2000 Act states that the report shall be made,
	"within the period of one month from the date on which that requirement is made or within such longer period as may be agreed between the Chief Constable and the Board".
	It is useful to look at recent experience; there has been no requirement—which is the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I am able to tell your Lordships that the current Chief Constable, when the matter has been discussed with him, finds it hard to see a situation arising in which it would be necessary for him to invoke the ground as it now stands in the Act. He would work with the board to reach an accommodation on issues of that nature.
	I have spent a little time on the general theme of Clause 19. These are not amendments that the Government are prepared to accept. Nor will we accept—I must say plainly at this stage—any attack on the Question that Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill, if that were to be made. I hope that your Lordships do not think that discourteous, but I have to put the matter beyond doubt.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him for an explanation. He has carefully explained what he describes as a difference of philosophy on a matter of operational independence between the view I have expressed and the view expressed in the Patten report. If the view expressed in the Patten report is relied upon as justifying the amendment we are discussing, why was that view not taken in 2000 when the Act was passed? What has made it necessary now?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is a perfectly legitimate question. At that stage, it was thought that ground four ought to be included. Since then, at least two things have happened. First, there has been the experience of the Chief Constable working with the board. Secondly, the implementation report came to the conclusion that ground four was not required. As the noble and learned Lord said, when we made our response to the implementation plan, which was post the 2000 Act, the Government gave the commitment which they are now honouring in this Bill.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanations and I thank noble Lords for taking part in the debate. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew made a reasoned argument and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who has considerable experience working on the Policing Board, has explained his views and fears.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, made some political points which I do not necessarily accept or agree with. I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal that this is not a Bill entirely for Sinn Fein. Many parts of it are practical, sensible and good and are well supported by the Policing Board and by the Chief Constable. I met the Chief Constable as recently as Monday, but on the understanding with him that I would not repeat anything we discussed. I shall say no more on the matter, if your Lordships will forgive me.
	There is a slightly different philosophical approach. I am surprised that it is coming from Her Majesty's Government, particularly in the light of recent changes in the Kingdom in regard to security, policing and the management of crime and criminals and terrorism and terrorists. The Government's record on that has not so far been good, but they are taking serious steps to attempt more strongly to secure our nation—except in this Bill and in parts of Northern Ireland. The Province is already far less secure and has suffered from crime and terrorism far more than any other part of the United Kingdom.
	My main point is that the Patten report was written on the understanding that the members of the commission did not expect it to be implemented immediately or to be implemented all at once. They did not expect parts of the report to be implemented until such time as society in Northern Ireland was living in a normal and peaceful way, as other people do in other parts of the United Kingdom.
	Patently that has not yet happened. Perhaps we are near it, but I do not believe that. I think that we have a very long way to go. Even if we were to get Stormont operating again, if Sinn Fein were to take part on the Policing Board, or even if the IRA publicly and obviously stood down, I can say from the meetings that I have had in north and west Belfast over the weekend and which my honourable friend Quentin Davies, who serves in another place, has had with people in east Belfast, that what is happening in Northern Ireland is horrifying. There are vicious terror gangs, turf wars and gun-running, so it is not a normal part of the United Kingdom.
	My key complaint about this part of the Bill is that it will do the things that the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said. It is too soon; it will put the community at risk. Her Majesty's Government do not have a right to put the community in any part of the United Kingdomat risk. I should love to support the Government in a Bill to normalise things. I cannot wait for the day, but as an inhabitant of that country, it not safe to do so yet.
	I regret that I cannot withdraw the amendment. I shall seek the views of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 142.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 9 [Inquiries by Board]:
	[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
	Clause 10 [Approval of proposals relating to inquiries by Board]:

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 7, line 4, leave out "subsections (2) and" and insert "subsection"

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, the amendment relates again to the numbers game. It is difficult to understand why, with 19 board members, the cut-off is to be only eight. That is 40 per cent with regard to those who can demand an inquiry. During debate on the previous amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked the relevant question of how often the provision had been invoked to the extent that numbers mattered. At either Second Reading or in Committee, my noble friend Lord Rogan asked the same question. On both occasions, the Minister intimated that it had not been invoked. One has to ask, therefore, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, why, in the short period of three years, we have to have this change.
	On another matter, the Minister indicated that evidence relating to how the board had worked justified Government making the change. However, having told us on this issue that there is no evidence whatever, that argument does not stand up. One has to query, therefore, whether the provision relates to the Government's intention to bring Sinn Fein on to the board. I shall not fall out with my noble friend Lord Glentoran when he discovers some good in some parts of the Bill. Nonetheless, we are on dangerous ground when inferring the Chief Constable's support by virtue of a conversation with him which cannot be reported to this House.
	In talking about democracy, I should have thought that we would apply some of those democratic rules to the Policing Board and would not be making special arrangements for only 40 per cent of the board to be able to invoke an inquiry. The mischievousness of Sinn Fein at the table when it is not in substantially powerful positions is a lesson which could be learned. I beg to move.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I support the amendment. During debate on removal of the clause, the Minister made a remark—I hope that he will not repeat it—on the Chief Constable's experience of the board. There is a brand new Chief Constable: I do not know how that remark came about. In terms of life in the Province, strategic points of view, and so on, six months does not warrant comments about experience of the board. I hope that eventually, under proper conditions, Sinn Fein comes on. The board will change; we have to wait far longer to see how it will work. However, I am grateful for the remarks about how well he thinks we are doing.
	At the moment, the board consists of 19 members. We have got 10, which is fractionally over half. It is quite simple. The strength of the Policing Board is that it is community-based and has a collective responsibility in making its decisions; it is a cross-community body. Even though Sinn Fein is not represented, the composition of the board takes into account various community backgrounds. It correctly reflects the community of Northern Ireland and the basic religious divide. So let us not say that because Sinn Fein is not represented at the moment the board does not reflect those proportions—it does.
	If and when Sinn Fein is represented on the independent members' side, I understand that, unless there is a change in the law to provide for a different number of people on the board, there will be a slight change in the number of independents. Because there would be two more speaking from the nationalist or the Roman Catholic point of view, a change will be made to the independent side so that the board continues to reflect a balance. So we are not talking about a lack of balance on the board.
	At the moment, a decision needs to be taken by more than 50 per cent of the board. In public, a board decision will be a collective responsibility to run an inquiry, report, or whatever. The public see that the decision is made under collective responsibility by more than 50 per cent of the board. It is extremely important that no decision is made without 50 per cent of the board being present.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, slightly side-stepped the question of who had brought forward this issue, but when I spoke to someone in the SDLP about it, he accepted that his party was very much behind it. Whether or not it was put to him in words is neither here nor there, his party was very much behind it. I asked him why and he said it would enable a smaller number of people to cause an inquiry to take place.
	I asked how it would work. He said, "If we want an inquiry, we need to get only eight people together for that to happen". I said, "But some on the other side might be against it"—although, for all I know, I could be in favour of an inquiry—and he said, "Well, under the circumstances, it could happen when no one else was available. We could call a meeting and, with eight of us, we could get it through".
	I said, "Okay, let us put it the other way. I want an inquiry into something, how do I run it?" He said, "You find eight people, get agreement and you do it". I said, "But then it is a decision made by less than 50 per cent of the board". He said, "That's right". So I said, "If I wanted to do it and you didn't, what would be your response?" He said, "My response would be that, as soon as I could, I would find nine or 10 members. We would then get together and change the decision".
	It is farcical to pose problems that will have to be solved in a totally irrational way. It is amazing that we are setting up a body that, under extreme conditions—we are not talking about something that will happen every day—would allow me to find eight people who will agree with me, get them into a huddle, and make a decision knowing very well that, because I had to struggle, the other 10 members will not agree. I know that, otherwise I would not bother; I would bring up the matter as normal before the board. So, again, there is a safety net.
	Let us now assume that I get the decision I want and it is minuted that we will have an inquiry into such and such. One, two or three weeks later, the others, realising that I did this while they were at the opera or the theatre or whatever, get together and decide to revoke the decision because they are the board. It should be remembered that, out of eight members, it would need only five to force the issue. But it is a collective decision, and I believe that the board should, and does, work under the principle of collective decision. I know that certain people do not keep confidences but, on the whole, the board does work as a body.
	This is the most amazing enabling clause. It is a farce, and it will be seen as a farce by everyone. The Minister's reply may be that this small group should be allowed to make such decisions because it is so reasonable, but the independents are weighted slightly more towards one side at the moment. However, I remind the House that the divisions reflect the community. The Government tried to create a Policing Board that is fair, reflects the community and is accepted by the public. They have done so, but this undermines it.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, although my Amendment No. 17 is not in this group, perhaps I may speak to it now. It effectively deals with the same issues. I give notice that I do not intend to divide the House on Amendment No. 17 today.
	I find it difficult to add to the persuasiveness of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. We have rehearsed the arguments. I understand from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal that Clause 10 represents a lowering of the threshold—which it does—and that the important words are "present and voting". But, not for the first time in our discussions on the Bill, I fail to see any logic in the justification for this change.
	Certain noble Lords to whom I have spoken have told me that in public bodies of this nature in England, more than 50 per cent of the representatives never turn up; that the figure is usually about 30 per cent or 20 per cent. That is not my experience, but it may be the experience in England. Even if it is, that is all the more reason for maintaining the higher number required to take decisions.
	In something as sensitive as policing in Northern Ireland, why are the Government taking risks by reducing the level to below 50 per cent of those required on the Policing Board for the Police Service of Northern Ireland? After the debates in the Grand Committee and recent visits to the Police Service and other parts of Belfast, I cannot see any logic or reason for this. I cannot see the positive side. I cannot see what is so good about this that it is important to change the legislation which, as we have said, is only two years old. It is taking a risk with the security, policing and lives of the people of Northern Ireland. It is time that the Government stopped doing it.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the genesis of this change is in the implementation plan of 2001. The Government intend, after the review, to provide that the number of members present and voting for a proposal for an inquiry should be eight so long as—let me stress these words—that is the majority of those present and voting.
	It is fanciful to suggest that a gang of eight can bring this about while others are at the opera. First, an inquiry follows receipt of a report under Section 59 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. Paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 to the Act provides that at least three members have to have made a written request to the chairman asking him to call a meeting. Paragraph 18(2) states:
	"The chairman shall, no later than three working days after the day on which he receives the request, call such a meeting".
	Paragraph 18(3) states:
	"The meeting shall be held no earlier than six, and no later than twenty-one, working days after that day".
	Critically for the opera lovers, paragraph 18(4) states:
	"The chairman shall notify each member of the Board of the date and purpose of the meeting".
	Those are mandatory requirements.
	The noble Viscount will know as well as I do that in 2002 an overall attendance of 90 per cent was achieved; three-quarters of all board members attended at least 12 of the 13 board meetings. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. The threshold will be lowered to eight although the board consists of 19 members, but there has to be a majority of those present and voting. With deep deference, I believe that the fears are overblown.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I beg to disagree with the noble and learned Lord on the latter point. Our fears are not overblown. The reality is that at the moment we live in a non-stable society. That lack of stability is brought about by the role of paramilitaries. I know that some have suggested that I am politicising what is a police matter. I am not politicising it; it is politicised by the nature of the Bill. It is politicised by this change that suggests that eight out of 19 is somehow a magical figure that can be attractive to the SDLP and to Sinn Fein.
	For the past 20 years in public life I have worked with the SDLP. At times I find that it assumes certain attitudes because it is fighting in the community for the same votes as Sinn Fein. Matters are not always as they appear. If noble Lords had had experiences, as I have, in local government in Northern Ireland, they would find that in that context that is true.
	In this unstable society of ours, Sinn Fein, for electoral reasons or for much more dubious and dangerous reasons, has the ability to intimidate. Anything that brings us down to that marginal area where intimidation, not just of politicians who are associated with the board but also of independent members who are on the board, may occur is dangerous in the extreme. For the reasons I have already enunciated and because there has never been any difficulty in regard to the previous figure of 10, I cannot understand why, without proven justification, the figure is now to be reduced to eight. I had intended to divide the House on this issue.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he would say whether he agrees with the reason given: that the Government feel there is simply no chance of such low numbers occurring. Just in case such a situation happened, does he agree that the reason for changing the figure is absolutely wrong and unfounded?

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I hope that that is the point I made. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for endorsing the matter. I had intended to seek the opinion of the House at this stage, but I shall see whether the Government can bring forward a reasonable compromise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 13 to 17 not moved.]
	Clause 11 (Investigations into current police practices and policies):

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Page 7, line 30, at end insert—
	"(2A) No investigation under this section shall extend to events or incidents that occurred before the coming into force of this section."

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. I hope that I can have an unequivocal reassurance from the Government. Previously, we dealt with the issue of whether an investigation could be retrospective; whether it could relate to matters that had occurred before the Bill became law. On that previous occasion the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, gave what I assumed was an unequivocal assurance. At a later stage he said something that suggested that that may not be the case. I apologise for not having the reference. My reason for moving this amendment is to try to understand the position on retrospection. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I hope that I can give a satisfactory assurance. At Second Reading I hoped I had made plain that it is not the Government's intention that the power to investigate police policies and practices will be retrospective. The amendment that I brought forward in Grand Committee made it clear that the ombudsman's power is limited to current policies and practices.
	In investigating current police practices, it would be natural for the ombudsman to inform herself of the way in which officers conducted themselves in applying those policies and practices that are current. In other words, if we accepted this amendment—I understand that it is intended to be probing—the ombudsman, in applying current practices, would not be able to look at conduct if that conduct had occurred perhaps two weeks before Royal Assent. I hope that I have made the distinction clear. This power is not to be retrospective in respect of past policies and practices. If the policy is current, the ombudsman will have to use her discretion as to what practices she considers. I hope that that is satisfactory.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. That is clear. He has endeavoured to be helpful. Before Third Reading perhaps I can ask him to consider this matter to discover whether it could be interpreted in a way that differs from his present intention. I believe that if there were enough pressure to consider a matter that was retrospective, it might be possible to say that something that applied to that retrospective issue is applicable today and so by using that as a starting point there would be justification for being retrospective.
	I hope I have made myself clear and that the noble and learned Lord understands the point I have made. I shall be grateful if, at a later stage, he can make a statement that would secure matters in the terms I have enunciated. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Glentoran: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 19:
	Page 7, line 36, at end insert ", and
	( ) the reasons for his decision to conduct the investigation."

Lord Glentoran: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, moves Amendment No. 19, I want to indicate support for the principle. The advice that I have received is that the amendment should be better drafted. I undertake to reflect further to see whether we can assist in drafting something that is acceptable.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord. I look forward to helping with the drafting, if that is required:

[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
	Clause 13 [Disqualification]:
	[Amendments Nos. 20 to 22 not moved.]
	Clause 15 [Core policing principles]:
	[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
	Clause 16 [Chief Constable's functions]:
	[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]
	Clause 17 [Provisions of information to Board]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Page 10, line 14, leave out "reasonably"

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this is to leave out the word "reasonably". It is the Shutt amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord. We are delighted with the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 27:
	Leave out Clause 17.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, the amendment seeks to leave out Clause 17. It is another matter that has already been fully debated. The issue is the provision of information to the board, which I understand we shall be discussing in relation to Clause 19.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, for the benefit of the noble Lord, I think that he has misunderstood. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, indicated, I believe, that he accepted that the debate on Clause 19 should be taken with the earlier amendment on which we divided.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, that is correct. I did not intend to move that Clause 19 should not stand part today.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I apologise. My point was that Amendment No. 27 is relevant to the debate on Clause 19. I hope that we shall return to the issue on Third Reading.

[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]

Lord Rogan: moved Amendment No. 28:
	After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
	"REMOVAL OF DISCRIMINATION FROM RECRUITMENT
	(1) In Part 6 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) for section 46 substitute—
	"46 UNDER-REPRESENTATION
	(1) In making appointments under section 39 the Chief Constable may take such steps as he determines appropriate to encourage applications by persons currently under-represented in the police service.
	(2) In making appointments to the police support staff under section 4(3) the Chief Constable (acting by virtue of subsection (5) of that section) may take such steps as he determines appropriate to encourage applications by persons currently under-represented in the police support staff.
	(3) For the purposes of this section "persons currently under-represented" means persons forming part of a social group by virtue of their sex, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation who at the time of consideration by the Chief Constable are under-represented."
	(2) In Part 6 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) leave out section 47."

Lord Rogan: My Lords, this amendment seeks to insert a new clause, on the removal of discrimination from recruitment, in Part 6 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. This is not a new issue. Many noble Lords will no doubt remember the highly contentious debate in this House on 15th November 2000 on the 50:50 recruitment arrangement. Noble Lords may also remember the result of the vote held on that day when 50:50 was narrowly carried by 185 to 175 votes.
	The principle of equality of opportunity is central to the Belfast agreement. Policing, however, is apparently regarded as an exception. The fact is that 50:50 denies equality of opportunity. It is nothing short of discrimination. We have always been opposed to 50:50 on that basis. The new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, and myself clearly states our position.
	The 50:50 principle requires that 50 per cent of those appointed from a pool of qualified applicants to the PSNI must be "persons who are treated as Roman Catholic" and 50 per cent must be "persons who are not so treated"—the "other" category. That clearly discriminates against the Protestant community, not to mention the substantial population in Northern Ireland who practise "other" or, indeed, no religion.
	During passage of the Bill which became the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, many in this place agreed with this position. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said:
	"I am sorry to see a Bill being passed which flies in the face of human rights legislation and which inevitably at some stage must cause problems".—[Official Report, 15/10/00; col. 286.]
	In another place, Mr Lembit Opik, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, vigorously opposed the measure on the same grounds. He said that we should not "monkey around" with human rights.
	Given that human rights are so central to liberal philosophy, we were rather surprised when the Liberal Democrats in this place acquiesced in relation to such discriminatory provisions. They may even have warranted the accusation made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that they were "in bed with Blair". As the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, put it in 2000, the Liberal Democrats,
	"will be aware of the consequences of permitting the discrimination genie to escape from the bottle".—[Official Report, 15/11/00; col. 282.]
	I hope that, today, they and others will join us in putting the cap back on the bottle.
	I do not intend to retread old ground and repeat old arguments. However, the situation in Northern Ireland has evidently changed since 2000. Two years down the line, we are in a position to reflect on the decisions of that year, to learn from experience and indeed to correct any mistakes. I do not wish to adopt the churlish attitude of, "We told you so", but it is clear that the predictions made in 2000 by many opponents of 50:50 have been realised.
	Since passage of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, and as a response to the Patten recommendations, the number of police officers has been dramatically reduced. The service has been virtually cut in half, to less than 6,902 officers—well below the figure recommended by Patten as the minimum level needed to police Northern Ireland. While 1,874 full-time reservists currently complement the police service, they, too, will be phased out after 2005.
	Many in this House and in another place voiced concerns in 2000 about the effects that such a reduction in numbers would have on expertise, experience and effectiveness in the police service. Reports in the Observer newspaper, in March 2002, pointed to a severe shortage in the top echelons of the service—a shortage of chief superintendents, superintendents, chief inspectors and sergeants, not to mention a serious shortage of constables. It was also revealed that many policemen and women who lost their jobs in the RUC's fingerprint bureau under Patten's reforms were re-employed in the PSNI as civilian technicians due to critical shortages of manpower and expertise in this area.
	Rather than increasing the applications and helping to build a first-rate police service, the 50:50 arrangements are clearly impeding recruitment and have resulted in a severe shortage of manpower. Last month, the chairman of the Police Federation, Mr Irwin Montgomery, said that the rigid enforcement of a policy requiring Catholics and Protestants to be recruited in equal numbers was starving Northern Ireland's already overstretched police service of officer and civilian staff.
	One recent training class had just 34 students—17 Roman Catholics and 17 others—when it should have had 48. The Chief Constable, Mr Hugh Orde, also reported recently that one of his priorities, to civilianise as many administrative posts as possible in order to get more officers out on patrol and doing front-line police work, was being frustrated by the policy of 50:50 recruitment.
	A recent trawl for 200 administrative assistants produced 250 suitable applicants from the "other" category, but only 28 from the Roman Catholic category, meaning that only 48 people could be taken on. This is the central issue. It is a catch-22 situation: 50:50 has led to a reduction in the number of police officers. The most obvious solution is to free officers from administrative posts, yet administrative posts are also subject to 50:50 and these places, too, cannot be filled.
	I do not wish to appear to exaggerate, but the situation is extremely grave. Your Lordships need only consider street violence, so prevalent in Belfast throughout the summer months, or the continuing loyalist feuds in the city. The reality is, as recent events have shown, that terrorism is still a force to be reckoned with in Northern Ireland. Whatever the rhetoric on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, there is terrorism. Crime levels are rising at an unprecedented rate. It seems absurd that at such a time the police service should be under-staffed and over-stretched. This is clearly a good time to be a criminal in Northern Ireland.
	In Committee a few weeks ago the Lord Privy Seal, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, gave some encouraging figures about PSNI recruitment. We very much welcome the fact that the percentage of applicants from the catholic community has risen to 36 per cent. However, that does not address the crux of the matter. Such figures do not reflect the level of recruitment. In the year 2000 we said that solving the problem of Catholic under-representation in the police service lay not in their appointment, but indeed in their willingness to apply. If we can tackle the application process, quotas for recruitment would be entirely unnecessary.
	The rise in the number of applications from Roman Catholics reflects the welcome endorsement of the PSNI by the SDLP, the Catholic Church and the decision by the SDLP to join the Police Board. Sinn Fein/IRA, however, still refuse to accept the new police service. Indeed, they continue actively to discourage young Catholics from joining the PSNI. Intimidation and attacks on Catholic recruits by the republican movement still continue. One recent recruit in Ballymena narrowly escaped injury last year from a booby trap placed underneath his car. Another recruit in Newry was forced to flee his home after threats.
	The reality is that many of those who would like to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland are either forced to forego their policing ambition for fear of intimidation or choose to move across the water rather than run the risk of endangering themselves or their families and being subjected to abuse within their own communities.
	Nor do the Sinn Fein/IRA representatives encourage their constituents to co-operate with the Police Service of Northern Ireland or report criminal activity to the police. Recently, when a young girl was savagely raped in west Belfast last November, the Sinn Fein Assembly Member for the area was unwilling to advise her concerned constituents to speak to the police service. Rather she preferred that they spoke to
	"those whom they could trust in the constituency and who have been looking after things in the constituency".
	I repeat that 50:50 recruitment arrangements do nothing to tackle the problem of intimidation, the root of the problem of Catholic under-representation. As the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, said in November, 2000,
	"Surely, encouraging applicants from under-represented sections of society—all under-represented sections of society—is the only effective means of addressing the problems and to achieve the prize of a police service that reflects the society that it polices".
	Discrimination in any form is unacceptable; discrimination in the Police Service of Northern Ireland is especially unacceptable. Introduced for whatever good reasons, 50:50 recruitment arrangements do not solve the problem of Catholic under-representation. The new Police Service of Northern Ireland is entirely frustrated in its attempts to police the community, suffering as it does from a lack of recruits. With the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill before the House today, we have an opportunity to review the decisions of the year 2000. We have an opportunity to make the necessary changes that would allow the PSNI to develop into the effective, first-rate police service Northern Ireland deserves. We have the opportunity to remove discrimination. I beg to move.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I have not played any part at all in the procedures and conduct of this Bill to date for extraneous reasons. Because it is always extremely hazardous to board a moving train, I have not tried to join in the amendments today, but I have one stand-alone question.
	My noble kinsman the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, asked a question at col. GC55 of the Official Report on 9th January about the numbers recruited into civil servant jobs, which would enable police to be released for active duty on the streets. At col. GC56, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal gave the answer, which showed Catholic recruitment of 13.3 per cent as against 36 per cent which he had referred to at col. GC55 for Catholics joining the police itself. Given the consequences of this particular imbalance, which is of itself interesting, has any research been done by the PSNI as to why recruitment on the civil servant side has been so much lower than into the police?

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, the 50:50 issue is a problem which affects the number of police on the ground. We must do everything we can to increase those numbers. Except for one particular training course, we are just managing to fill the quotas. I believe that we are marginally ahead in total on what was estimated at the beginning. There is still a problem.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, referred to a recent "trawl". I would not like that to be taken the wrong way. The noble Lord was referring to civilian support staff. It is not a trawl such as someone going out to find people, it is a straightforward public competition, as they are now called. It is a recruiting competition in exactly the same way as it is for policemen. It is not a trawl.
	As regards the competition and the figures of 26 or 28 Roman Catholics being available, there were 238 Protestants available. The effect is that every job which could be civilianised and thereby release a policemen is extremely important under the present circumstances. I ask the noble and learned Lord one question. Whereas one cannot have a short contract policeman who joins policing for a few months, in administrative work with secretaries and administrative jobs in offices, surely it might be possible in the interim, while continuing to recruit, to have people on short-term contracts, medium-term temps, which would immediately release the police officers holding such posts. Because they would be on temporary contracts, when and if the 50:50 quota from those recruited into the police support staff as whole comes about, those people could be released from the contracts. That would at least release policemen to go out on the streets today.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, for reminding me of prophecies I uttered in your Lordships' House some three years ago. I remember on that occasion a vast number of noble Lords, mainly on my left, saying that I was sending out the wrong signals. I ask them to think about the validity of that allegation.
	I do not want to rehearse what has been put forward effectively by colleagues. However, I should like some reassurance from the Government. It is clear that the situation in Northern Ireland is getting out of hand, whether through terrorism, so-called Real IRA activities or the activities of various other types of IRA. There can be no distinction. They must all be contained and, if possible, obliterated. That must be our objective.
	On behalf of those who will be butchered in the months and years ahead, I seek assurance that, without any undue publicity, Her Majesty's Government are turning their mind to what will be done in practical terms to remedy a horrific situation. I know enough, having served in the forces in times of war and on other occasions, to be aware that no government ever contemplate the future without a contingency plan. I hope it is not too much to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, not necessarily to reveal to us what that plan is, but to assure us that a plan does indeed exist, not only to contain terrorism, but also to arrest its development in Northern Ireland. We shall all sleep easier in our beds—some have good personal reasons for including that qualification—if we know that Her Majesty's Government have a contingency plan and intend to implement it as soon as possible.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I intervene briefly on Amendment No. 28 to remind the House that, initially, I would have been deemed to be out of step with my party colleagues on the issue of 50:50 recruiting. But some noble Lords will have seen the recent census of Northern Ireland. There is not a huge imbalance between the two major traditions.
	In conversations with Patten, I suggested that we could be in a situation where, if there was an avalanche of applicants and ultimately of recruits from both traditions, a short window of opportunity might be created when there could be an endeavour to recruit on a 50:50 basis. In that situation, confidence would be created which would draw both traditions into active and practical support of the police.
	Unfortunately, a number of mistakes were made. One was that the window of opportunity was left open far too wide. There became no urgency for young men and women within the Roman Catholic tradition to make a decision. With the ongoing pressure that comes from paramilitaries like the Real and Continuity IRA, and still comes from the Provisional IRA, it is only natural that young Catholic men and women should hold back. The window of opportunity will still be open further down the road, but in the interim the process fails to work.
	My noble friend Lord Brookebrough said that we were marginally holding on. "Marginally holding on" means that standards requirements in terms of recruitment are falling. For instance, at the initial stage recruits are not asked to demonstrate their academic attainment. That has gone almost unnoticed. But something noble Lords will find unbelievable is that physical fitness standards are no longer set or required for recruits to the PSNI. They have been wiped out. When before, in the western world, did there ever exist a police service when physical fitness standards were totally ignored? What sort of policemen and police women is that likely to put on our streets over the next months and years? It is a nonsense.
	That shows the extent to which the bottom of the pot has been scraped in order to enable a process to survive which simply is not working. While no one wishes more than I to see a large element of Roman Catholic members within the police—that is my party's policy—I do not believe that to achieve it we should denigrate every applicant by scraping the bottom of the barrel. I shall be grateful if the noble and learned Lord addresses that specific point when he responds.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I shall not detain the House; it is long past lunch time. I cannot support Amendment No. 28.
	Since Patten, and since my right honourable friend Andrew Mackay was shadow Secretary of State, until today, the Conservative Party has consistently supported the 50:50 principle. We now know, as a result of the census, that we are talking about a population in the ratio of 45:55. On that principle I cannot support the amendment.
	However, I accept that there is a problem to which the Government must attend. I attempted, rather hurriedly and not very satisfactorily, to table some thoughts in the form of a probing amendment, Amendment No. 29A, which I hope we shall have a chance to debate later today. I may well wish to test the opinion of the House at Third Reading on that point, having had a chance to refine and tune the amendment. However, I am not, in principle, able to support the amendment of my friends in the Ulster Unionist Party.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are debating Amendments Nos. 28 and 29. The two main criticisms appear to be, first, that there are not enough recruits, and, secondly, that civilianisation is being impeded. In fact 530 recruits were appointed in the first year of the policy. That is substantially in excess of the Patten model figure of 370. In any event, as your Lordships know, the Act of 2000 allows for the quota to be adjusted on any occasion if there is a shortage of recruits. But that has not been necessary.
	I accept the point made that there was an exodus of experienced officers from the police service. But a variation of 50:50 for new recruits would not have affected that. I understand that the board agreed a revised timetable with the Chief Constable for the severance programme.
	On civilianisation, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked a specific question about the disparity in figures. The short answer is that because the arrangements for the recruitment of civilians on a 50:50 basis were set up around 12 months after those for police officers, there has been a lag. And the contractor appointed to oversee civilian recruitment—Grafton—was only appointed last September. The Chief Constable's observations about the difficulties with respect to civilianisation preceded the appointment of Grafton. I understand that the police plan to launch a further campaign for administrative staff shortly.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, the Chief Constable's comments were made shortly before Christmas in the newspaper. That seems well after the appointment of Grafton.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the advice that I have is different, and I will check that. I would not want to have misled the House inadvertently on wrong advice.
	On civilianisation, the competitions run so far by Grafton have been successful. Sufficient numbers of candidates from both community backgrounds have come forward to allow vacancies to be filled on a 50:50 basis where appropriate.
	The noble Viscount asked a number of questions about short-term contracts. In some posts, there is scope for such contracts. Where the police service thinks it appropriate, it can follow that option. However, as he would accept, in many posts there is a need for expertise and training, and long-term recruitment is the way forward for that.
	Grafton is already running eight different competitions for the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
	Amendment No. 29, of which not a lot was said, would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to make an order adjusting the ratio. As I pointed out a moment or two ago, the Secretary of State's power under the 2000 Act has never been used. It may be helpful to say that if the Policing Board wanted to agree to a limited change to get round a lack of experienced officers, obviously we would look at it very carefully. Noble Lords may agree, however, that that is essentially an issue for the board to consider in the first instance with the Chief Constable.
	The Chief Constable's comments around and about Christmas referred to a competition that took place before Grafton's appointment, so I think that I was right to say that he was referring to the pre-Grafton situation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, asked about the Government's plans and proposals. As I have told noble Lords more than once, the Government's hope is that the Assembly elections will be held in May. That is what the Secretary of State has said on a number of occasions. Plainly, any prudent government will have alternatives in mind depending on what develops.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, referred to physical competence. The test for that will not be applied to applicants in the current recruitment programme, but all trainees will be required to pass the test before they are attested.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I wish to thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate. As I have said repeatedly, 50:50 is not a new issue. The removal of the discrimination in our police service is one of tremendous importance to the people of Northern Ireland and the future of policing. We in the Ulster Unionist Party have been consistent on the issue.
	I listened carefully to the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, and on this occasion I do not wish to test the opinion of the House. However, I hope to return to the matter on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned until after Starred Questions.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 1.54 to 3 p.m.]

Game Licences

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will abolish game licences.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, licences for taking and dealing in game are intended to discourage poaching, to encourage compliance with close seasons for the conservation of quarry species, and to protect food safety. Representations indicate that food retailers, among others, would welcome changes. We are sympathetic to that. However, we need to reflect carefully on the way forward, taking into account the wider implications of any decision to reform the current arrangements.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I declare an interest as one of the 8 per cent of holders of shotgun licences who has bought a game licence. As the Government know perfectly well—the Minister gave me a Written Answer two weeks ago—these licences cost more to collect than they produce. They collect an infinitesimally small amount—a quarter of a million pounds. Nobody is prosecuted for not having a game licence. Surely, unenforced laws are bad laws. Are the Government not keen, in these marginal circumstances, to lift the burden of this and other similarly nonsensical licences lurking in Whitehall? Will they not do something about it? We need action not words.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, 49,000 people have taken out a game licence. The regime has implications for conservation, the preservation of quality of the retail trade, and gun laws, with which it interfaces, so it would be complex to change it. In principle, I agree with the noble Lord. If the price of a game licence had kept pace with inflation, it would be about £2,000 rather than £6.
	Further to the noble Lord's last remark, I hope that he does not blame this Government or their immediate predecessors. The blame rests entirely with the Liberal Democrats, as it was the late Lord Grey and the late Lord Palmerston who introduced the provisions.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I declare an interest as having paid £2 at Christmas for a game licence to allow me to participate in taking game for two weeks. I am interested to hear the Minister say that he regards licensing as a deterrent to poaching. Has he heard that the Durham police force will no longer take up poaching cases? How does that fit with the Government's promise to be tough on crime?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, it ill behoves a Minister to comment on the operational priorities of any chief constable. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Durham police force is concentrating on other rural crime issues. The contribution of game licences to the prevention of poaching may not be as great as it was when they cost substantially more, and when poaching was one of the biggest crimes in the countryside.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, given the reasons the Minister gave in his first Answer and the changes that may be brought about if the Hunting Bill is passed, is his department reviewing the question of tagging deer carcasses? They are subject to particular problems and would benefit very much from tagging. When the House discussed the matter previously, some of the impediments were technological. They have been overcome in the nine years since the House last discussed this in depth.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the regime covering the taking and marketing of deer could benefit from better traceability measures, including tagging. I understand that not all the technological and operational impediments have been overcome, but, when that happens, the Government will regard such measures as desirable.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, if the Government are not prepared to withdraw the licence to kill game, will they take steps to ensure that a larger proportion of those killing game have such licences, if they feel it necessary? If not, why not support my noble friend Lord Marlesford?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the implication of what I have said on behalf of the Government is that this is a complex area. If it were just a question of licensing the taking of game, and considering the implications for the discouragement of poaching, it would be easy to remove the regime. But there are also implications for conservation and the regulations on the use of game for food. If we removed the licensing regime, those complexities would need to be addressed and would possibly be replaced.

Drivers and Mobile Phones

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they propose to take following the publication by Direct Line of evidence of the dangers of using mobile phones while driving.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have noted the findings of the Direct Line research published last March. The Department for Transport issued a consultation document on 20th August last year seeking views on a proposal to prohibit the use of hand-held mobile phones when driving. The consultation period closed on 25th November. More than 1,000 responses have been received and these are now being considered. An announcement on the results of consultation will be made as soon as possible.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and the prospect of some action by the Government. Is he aware that the Direct Line reports states that the use of hand-held mobile telephones is far more dangerous than driving at the alcohol limit? When drivers exceed the alcohol limit they incur penalties.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am aware of it. That is why my response on our knowledge of the Direct Line report was so neutral, and why I said only that we noted it. What the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, says is true, but it would be wrong to conclude that it is less damaging or illegal to drive while under the influence of drink or drugs. That is a message not just for Christmas but throughout the year. It must be reinforced on all possible occasions.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that health and safety legislation imposes on employers a duty to provide a safe working environment for their employees. But is it not the case that many firms not only fail to offer advice to their employees about using mobile phones when driving but that they regard the car as an extension of the office and encourage staff to make calls while on the move? Should it not be a priority to discourage that practice?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as one who previously employed salesmen to whom we issued mobile phones—hands-free sets, I hasten to add—I acknowledge the force of what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, says. This is one of the issues that must be considered in the consultation process in which we have been involved and in the conclusions we draw from it.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the subject was raised in this House as long ago as 1997 when the Government's response was that it was for the police to decide whether the distraction materially reduced a driver's care and attention? Is that still the situation? Some telephone conversations can be very distracting.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, more recently, the police have advised us that they have adequate powers, under regulation 104 of the Construction and Use Regulations 1986, to prosecute anyone who is not in control of a vehicle. That could result in a prosecution for careless or dangerous driving. Things have moved on since then; not least, the enormous increase in the number of mobile phones in this country. We have undertaken consultation because of increasing pressure of that kind.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Mayor of London is encouraging payment for congestion charges by using text messages on mobile telephones? Does he think that this is a contribution to road safety?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I know no more about the matter than I have read in the press. The report that I read said that the Mayor had accompanied his encouragement with the opinion that text messages should not be made while driving.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that evidence given by the police indicates that fines will not deter drivers from using mobile phones? However, points on the licence would deter them. Therefore, we should perhaps move straight to points on the licence for the use of mobile phones.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, may or may not know that the RAC published a report on this subject only this week. It comes to the conclusion, supported by 90 per cent of respondents, that there should be a ban on hand-held mobile phones and that it should be a comparable offence to speeding—in other words, a combination of fines and penalty points.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, what would be the position of the emergency services who may well have to use mobile phones or radios in the course of their duties while driving?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I would be astonished if the emergency services were reduced to using hand-held mobile phones.

Lord Monson: My Lords, while it is not only reasonable but highly desirable to ban the use of mobile phones while driving, would it not be going too far to ban their use when a driver is stuck at a traffic jam with his handbrake on?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is one of the issues which the Government are considering in the consultation process. If use was banned while a driver was stopped in a traffic jam, we would not be alone. Germany has such a ban. I do not believe we should anticipate the results of the consultation. We should not rule out a complete ban while in control of a vehicle.

Lord Methuen: My Lords, does the Minister agree that provincial taxi drivers are particularly bad offenders at using mobile phones while on the move?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not use provincial taxi drivers, so I do not have any direct experience. If taxi drivers use the phone as a work tool, it would be particularly irresponsible if it were a hand-held phone. In all this talk about the difference between hand-held and hand-free phones, I should point out that the Direct Line research did show that using a hand-free phone also reduced the response times of drivers significantly.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that if hand-free telephones are regarded as so dangerous, then so is any form of conversation. Will he not, therefore, prohibit talking while in a car?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, again this is a matter for consultation.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I cannot stand up and think at the same time.
	My Lords, the evidence I have just given from the Direct Line research ought to be taken seriously.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, whatever the legislative framework—whether we adopt a new one or continue with the assurances I gave the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, when he asked the original Question—is it not true that reducing the use of mobile phones while people are driving will depend on enforcement which, in turn, depends on the resources that the police are able to devote to the enforcement of traffic offences?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, indeed it does. It is because of the lack of enforcement of the existing offence under the construction and use regulations that there has been this shift of emphasis towards a direct ban. The enforcement issue is particularly important for hand-free phones. How can someone outside a car tell whether a hand-free phone is being used?

North-East England: Economy

Lord Dormand of Easington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What proposals they have to improve the economy of north-east England.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have undertaken to make sustainable improvements in the economic performance of all English regions. In addition, we have for the first time undertaken to reduce the persistent gap in growth rates between them over the long term. Our policies towards the north-east of England, both directly and through the regional development agency, ONE North East, are directed towards achieving this end.

Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the Government have done a great deal for the north-east of England, although I am not quite so impressed by what my noble friend has said in relation to the actual position. Does he agree that there is a continuing difficulty in the region in that it constantly has the highest rate of unemployment in the country? I understand that it has had the highest rate since such figures have been kept. What does my noble friend think is the cause of what I might describe as the inconsistency of the region? When a new factory opens with 500 jobs, it is frequently followed by the closure of a factory with a similar number of jobs. Could not the Government give more assistance to the regional development agency, ONE North East, which makes such a valuable contribution to the region's economy?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not at all happy about the performance of the north-east of England. The gap between that region and the rest of England has not only not fallen but has been increasing in recent years. The heavy dependence on manufacturing industry, which is still enormously important in the North East, is partly to do with that. As to the unemployment figures, for many years there has been a difference of about 2.5 per cent between the figures for the North East and the figures for the rest of the country—and the North East has been the worst. If it is any consolation, the unemployment figure for the North East is now 6.7 per cent, which is only 1.5 per cent greater than the national average. This must be, by a long way, the lowest unemployment figure in the region for a long time.
	As to the regional development agency, I agree entirely with my noble friend. We are increasing our grant to ONE North East from £189 million this year to around £227 million next year. This is in recognition of the need for the excellent work that it does.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, given that there are many rural areas in the North East, what are the Government doing to promote the spread of broadband? It is particularly difficult for many rural areas in the North East because they do not qualify for European assistance in the promotion of broadband. Without government help, it will be difficult to meet the Government's target of bringing broadband not only to businesses but to doctors' surgeries.
	Does the Minister believe that the particularly strong bid by Newcastle and Gateshead to become the European City of Culture will automatically help the north-east economy?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is very good news for the North East that Newcastle and Gateshead are on the shortlist for the European City of Culture. Without expressing any preference between the different British cities on that shortlist, clearly winning the title will bring very considerable economic advantages to the region in which the city is located.
	As to broadband, there are problems in rural areas. But the Government's commitment to installing broadband in every school, for example, applies to the North East as well as to everywhere else.

Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, many of us can remember the unemployment rate being very much higher in the North East than that which the Minister has rightly quoted today. Will he commend the North East for being the first of two regions of the country to introduce the venture capital fund? This fund releases capital to medium and small businesses in the region provided that they have good ideas. It allows them to expand, develop and create more employment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am well aware of the work which the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, has done over many years in this area for his native North East and I pay tribute to it. He is right about venture capital. I could also refer to the Regional Centre for Manufacturing Excellence, which, again, is one of only two and is already starting to do excellent work.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, manufacturing accounts for 60 per cent of this country's exports and employs 4 million people—about 20 per cent of the workforce. Does it remain the Government's policy that manufacturing is of critical importance to our economy? Will the Government encourage, in particular, investment in the sunrise industries that can harness and use new technologies to safeguard and expand the number of jobs in manufacturing?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can certainly give that assurance. We give heavy priority to manufacturing industry, which is particularly important for the North East, where 5,000 enterprises employ 150,000 people. It employs 21 per cent of the area's workforce and accounts for 28 per cent of its GDP.
	There have been many recent successes in attracting sunrise enterprises to the North East. The trouble is that they have been accompanied by losses from the North East—as from other parts of the country—to manufacturing in eastern Europe and the Far East. It is a continuing battle.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Durham city, where I hail from, was one of the first cities—in fact, I think it was the first—to introduce a congestion charge, which seems to be working extremely well?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, so I gather. My understanding is that the system has reduced traffic in Durham city centre by 90 per cent, which is far more than is intended for central London.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that the North East has many good universities. Is he also aware that many graduates travel to the hotspots in the South East and the South of England and do not remain behind to build up a broader base of industry in the North East? What can the Government do to assist?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the answer is that they should not travel to the South. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is right: the universities in the North East can contribute a great deal and can be very attractive to undergraduates.
	My noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville has been very active, as Science Minister, in encouraging collaboration between industry and academia through the science and industry councils in the North East. For example, there is the University Innovation Centre for Nanotechnology, which was set up in the North East and designed specifically for that purpose. I hope that that and other similar ventures will go a considerable way to answering the problem identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock.

Universities: Tuition Fees

Baroness Seccombe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What criteria will be used to determine whether universities will be allowed to charge top-up fees.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, before universities are given freedom to raise tuition fees, they must demonstrate that they will safeguard access. Universities will not be allowed to increase tuition fees until an access agreement has been agreed with the new access regulator, including targets that the universities will set for themselves. Universities will be able to vary fees downwards without conditions.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Yesterday, she said:
	"it would be completely wrong for the regulator to be considering the detail".—[Official Report, 22/1/03; col. 717.]
	If that is the case, how on earth can the regulator possibly do the job?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I stand by exactly what I said yesterday. We do not expect the regulator to be involved in the detail of individual admissions—for example, as I said yesterday, by sitting in on interviews or doing anything of that nature.
	Access agreements might include details of how the university was helping—through link schemes, for example—to target people in schools who might not otherwise aspire to go to university. There might also be details of a university's bursary schemes or summer schools and of the admissions process. Those are exactly the things that the regulator will look for.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend recall the Answer that she gave to my Starred Question on 24th July, 2001? She twice paid tribute to the access policies of Oxford University and, in response to other noble Lords, of other universities too. Is her view of the Oxford admission scheme the same now as it was then? Does she remain committed to the principle that world-class research-based universities are essential in our country? In that context, academic excellence is of paramount importance.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I remember the Answer intimately. I pay tribute to all universities, including Oxford, for their excellent work in broadening access. We hope and trust that the regulator will assist in that process, not least because it will provide an opportunity for an independent person working within the Higher Education Funding Council for England to point to the tremendous work that the universities do. The universities may find that of value, as they seek to demonstrate that they want the best students.
	I hope that, as my noble friend and others consider the White Paper in more detail, they will see the emphasis that we put on world-class research and the way in which we strive to make sure that we have world-class research and to recognise the universities that are already at that level.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, can the Minister tell us why it is thought necessary to have a regulator for access, given that any self-respecting university already has an access policy and that such policies are monitored by the HEFCE? When KPMG examined the costs of the existing regulation of universities, they found that it was disproportionate to the benefits yielded. Is this not another case of over-regulation?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I have said and as is set out in the White Paper, the regulator will be based in HEFCE and will use its information and systems. There will not be another bureaucracy built around the regulator. The regulator will, of course, be independent, but we are keen to ensure that we work within a system that already exists.
	The reasons should be evident to the noble Baroness. Many noble Lords will be aware that, as we move to a new situation, in which we allow differential fees in universities, there is great concern to ensure that the impact of those differential fees is not felt by students who come from the poorest backgrounds. The combination of allowing people to pay off their loan and pay their fees at the end of their course and ensuring that universities work hard to maintain or improve their record on access is necessary if the policy is to be successful, as, I know, the universities wish it to be.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us the position with regard to fees in the major European universities? Do they have a method of financing comparable to top-up fees?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble and learned Lord's question at this stage. I shall write to him to give him the details.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, yesterday, the noble Baroness said:
	"We are in discussion with our colleagues in Scotland to ensure that we have an appropriate system".—[Official Report, 22/1/03; col. 713.]
	What does that mean? I have a second question. By definition, a regulator must regulate. What powers will the regulator have to regulate?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have discussed with our colleagues in Scotland the implications of increasing the threshold from £10,000 to £15,000. It will apply in Scotland, as Inland Revenue rules are applicable. We have ensured that that has been discussed, understood and recognised by our colleagues in Scotland.
	As we move forward, our colleagues in Scotland will be interested to see the impact on universities in Scotland or on Scottish students coming to universities in England. As noble Lords would expect, that dialogue continues. I hope that that clarifies the position for the noble Baroness.
	As is set out in the White Paper, the regulator will have the power to impose fines on universities that do not follow their access agreement or do not have an access agreement. The regulator will also have the power to require universities to reduce their fees to the standard rate.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, has not the time come for the Government to loosen, not increase, their regulatory authority over universities? Does the Minister agree that one way would be for the Government to decide how much they can afford to pay for each university student—including extra payments for those from disadvantaged backgrounds—then allow universities to compete for students in the marketplace?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that in the course of the 18 months that the Government have deliberated on the matter, every possible avenue has been explored in determining how best to put together a system that does what we want. I will rehearse that we want a world-class university system properly funded, with contributions from those who benefit—including the Government on behalf of the nation. We believe that we have found the right balance.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [HL]

Further considered on Report after Clause 17

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 29A:
	After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
	"APPOINTMENTS TO THE POLICE SERVICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND
	(1) The Secretary of State may, at the request of a majority of the Policing Board, and acting on the recommendation of the Chief Constable, by order—
	(a) suspend the provisions of section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) for a maximum period of six months; and
	(b) permit the Chief Constable to appoint to the Police Service of Northern Ireland persons from other constabularies within the United Kingdom as he deems appropriate.
	(2) An order may not be made under this section unless a draft of that order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament."

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, this is a continuation of our previous debate. My party supports Patten and, at this stage, the 50:50 recruitment regulations. I am optimistic about them in one way because essentially they are only temporary in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. But I disagree with the noble and learned Lord in his optimism about the way that recruitment is going.
	I apologise for the late tabling of the amendment, which is the result of a political visit—as opposed to one of my normal weekend visits—to Northern Ireland at the beginning of this week. From my discussions with various people, there is clearly a recruitment problem within the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It is short of personnel in specific areas and there are gaps in knowledge, experience and numbers of people.
	I confess that the amendment is not absolutely to my liking and could be improved but its purpose is to tease out some ideas for alleviating the recruitment problem. One could say that the root cause is 50:50 but I choose not to do so. I say that it is Sinn Fein/IRA. There are plenty of Roman Catholics and nationalists in Northern Ireland who are dying to join the police force—good, competent and honest people whom we and the Chief Constable, I am sure, would much like to have within the PSNI. However, intimidation is widespread. Although the Catholic Church and the SDLP have put their names to the PSNI and have joined, the others have not. While the others continue not to join and to intimidate, life is made extraordinarily difficult for the recruiters. The net result is that recruitment to the PSNI has been hijacked by Sinn Fein's threats, intimidation and refusal to play the game and join the team.
	The amendment tackles the numbers head on, in terms of both clerical and uniformed personnel, so that the proportion of uniformed officers having to work in secretarial roles can be significantly reduced and the Chief Constable may be permitted to appoint persons from other constabularies within the UK as he deems appropriate.
	I understand that a large number of men and women from Northern Ireland are serving in police forces elsewhere in the UK but cannot automatically be recruited and given places within the PSNI. Most would have to go through the training centre at Garnerville. If one has been on the beat for seven or 10 years and is experienced, one would not expect a return to basic training because of changing forces. That does not seem logical.
	Anyone who has visited Garnerville will know that as a training centre for a brand-new, growing police force, it is awful. It is not dirty or rundown, but it is too small and inadequate. The accommodation for trainees is terrible—tiny rooms for two people in which at best one of them can sit and work but the other cannot. The facilities are not exciting or attractive and would not make me feel good if Garnerville were my first impression of PSNI training. It may be a side issue but Garnerville seriously shocked me.
	We must find a means as soon as possible of loosening the grip that Sinn Fein intimidation has on PSNI recruitment. I suggest that the provision of the 2000 Act initially be suspended for only six months so that a door can be opened when the Chief Constable and his team have their backs to the wall, with not enough officers on the streets. Because the force is overworked and overstretched, morale suffers, absenteeism increases and one starts on a wheel that we have all encountered at some stage in our lives, in one form of business or another.
	Despite the politics, which I understand clearly, the Government must find a way to alleviate the problem. I beg to move.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support 50:50 entry to the police service, or at least some proportion close to it, which is necessary in view of northern Irish history and in particular of the disputes in the past over policing. It is also necessary to bridge the Protestant-Roman Catholic divide, which is still very real despite much valiant inter-Church and ecumenical work.
	I am less happy about the way in which the principle has been put into practice. Section 46(1) of the 2000 Act was badly drafted. It states that half shall be persons who are deemed to be Roman Catholic and half shall be others. I cannot see why atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and members of other minority religions should be deemed to be Protestants. As many as 15 per cent of the whole population may be agnostic, non-believing or adherents to minority faiths. Surely such people can be trusted to act impartially as between Protestants and Catholics, since by definition they do not share their convictions.
	I therefore suggest that there is much scope for new thinking on how the 50:50 principle should be applied. Will the Secretary of State vary the ratios in some helpful way? As I said at Second Reading, I am very concerned at the overall shortage of police officers, especially detectives and other ranks, and the shortage of officers to provide cover at night. The recruitment of civilians and the new police support staff may, and I hope will, do something to relieve the situation.
	I was glad to hear of the campaigns that the recruitment consultants are now running. I should like to propose that police volunteers to serve in Northern Ireland, coming from Britain and the Commonwealth, should be treated as additional to 50:50 local recruitment. Their education, training and previous service make them fully aware of the need for total impartiality. They should be free from sectarian suspicion. The Chief Constable has told me that he advertises twice a year to attract British and Commonwealth applicants. Is that enough? I should like to see an appeal made to the heads of British and Commonwealth police services to second some of their best and most experienced officers.
	In my view, on those grounds, Amendment No. 29A is not geographically, sufficiently widely drawn. Surely the United States of America should also be included in both advertisements and appeals. That country has been generous to Northern Ireland by providing the services of the former Senator Mitchell and by arranging sundry presidential visits. I should have thought that the USA could afford to spare a few police officers.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I said this morning that I was asking a stand-alone question. The question that I ask now is a stand-alone question also. It is tangential to my noble friend's amendment. I shall understand if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal says that he would like to write to me.
	About a year ago, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I, under the auspices of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, had the opportunity of talking to the recruits at Garnerville in one of the earliest cohorts. One of the concerns that arose—I return to what my noble friend said about Sinn Fein pressure—was that recruits were being told specifically where they were going to go and where they were going to serve. They had some opportunity for consultation but, ultimately, it was going to be an order that they might have to go to an area which might not be ideal in terms of their own particular background.
	We raised that same matter with the Policing Board in the afternoon and the Policing Board knew nothing of it and, initially, was disturbed. The nature of my question is whether, during the course of the past year, that problem has been solved.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I have some sympathy with Amendment No. 10 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and his noble friends. I see the danger as enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. What is being attempted in order to resolve a short-term problem will not, in effect, resolve the underlying problem that exists within Northern Ireland.
	I may be guilty of going back too far in history, but perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the situation in the early 1970s when the Army was brought into Northern Ireland to resolve a problem. The Army was welcomed with open arms right across the community. It appeared to be that dodging the issue at home and bringing in the Army from Great Britain was to be the answer at that time. That did not last. One cannot, and should not, discount the nature of terrorism when endeavouring to resolve a problem in the short-term.
	In effect, it was a very short period before the Army— who were initially being given cups of tea and had been welcomed at doors throughout both areas of Belfast and elsewhere—were being shot at and were being seen as legitimate targets because they underpinned, and were seen to underpin, the Britishness of Northern Ireland.
	I have some sympathy with the amendment, but I fear that, ultimately, the same situation would arise. Those who are brought in, for the best of reasons, would be seen as sustaining something that terrorist elements oppose. Hence, they would become targets.
	I do not know the answer; I wish I could tell your Lordships what the alternative is. I do not know what it is. But I simply urge caution in terms of short-term measures that may not actually tackle the underlying problem that we must face.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I, too, have sympathy with Amendment No. 10. For once, I am delighted to say that I am entirely in favour of what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, and thank him for his support.
	We need help in recruiting policemen. I feel that the Government do not do everything in their power to help to resolve the situation in the short-term, although there are long-term aims. When we talk of lateral entry from other forces, there is no question but that certain issues could be eased. It is also true that a policeman from the Wild West of America cannot go into West Belfast and be a policeman there. One accepts that.
	However, there must be a point at which a certain amount of police training is common to virtually all police forces. There would also be a certain amount of training that was simply either inappropriate or had to be re-run in the context of Northern Ireland. Although the Government may say that they could do something, I should like to see some action. We need measures that will provide properly qualified policemen.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, mentioned the training college at Garnerville, where new recruits may have to attend for a time. Lateral entry is perhaps for the more mature person who is a policeman already, as opposed to a raw recruit. Therefore, he may be married; he may be a family man; he may be 35 years-old; he may be even older. Garnerville is an absolute disgrace. On one occasion a mother of three had to go into one of these almost cell-like rooms in Garnerville, where she had to clean the floor and was given virtually no implements. Your Lordships may say that I am on the Policing Board and am therefore responsible for that. I shall turn to that point in a moment. The woman had to try to lift the dust with sellotape. "Degrading" is not the word for it.
	It is not the Policing Board's fault. We are doing what we can. The Oversight Commissioner pointed out in his last report that the Government have done nothing about Garnerville in three and a half years. Proposals were put forward when the Policing Board was first set-up. The Government have side-stepped them in every way possible. The Maze prison site may be used for new facilities, and there are arguments for and against. But that has happened throughout. Perhaps the Maze site is inappropriate for this college.
	However, the Government side-stepped the issue at first and said that the task had been given to the Executive. They said that they could do nothing. But as they have a responsibility for security, what would they do if, having given it to the Executive, they had then to get it back? That would be rather unusual.
	However, as the Assembly is not operating at the moment the Government own the premises again. If they had wanted to, they could have done something about it and brought a proposal before Parliament, if that were necessary. They did absolutely nothing. It is a disgrace, and the Oversight Commissioner is fully aware of it. So is everyone else. We have been badly let down.
	The Minister will tell us that a committee is trying to resolve the issue. The Oversight Commissioner says that the college cannot be in place for another three and a half years. It was a major item in the Patten report and so far as the Oversight Commissioner was concerned. If Patten is always right, why have the Government not provided the facility?

Lord Monson: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Hylton about the possible merits of recruiting people from the British mainland. However, I would totally oppose recruiting anyone from the United States, given the widespread support for militant republicanism in that country until recently. Furthermore, there is an amazing ignorance of the Province among Americans, even the most highly educated.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in so far as I can, I shall try to confine myself to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. It is not correct that nothing has been done by the Government about Garnerville. I accept that there are significant considerable deficiencies there. We have made £2 million available for new works and the refurbishment of existing facilities and we remain committed to the Patten recommendations for a new police college.
	As I see it, there are two elements in the noble Lord's amendments. He says candidly that he recognises that the drafting may not be perfect. The first element is suspension of the 50:50 recruitment provisions. That is not going to help in the context of what he described as gaps in skill and experience because 50:50 refers to new entrants.
	I remind your Lordships that the Chief Constable already has the power to appoint officers of any rank, from sergeant to chief superintendent, from Great Britain constabularies. He already has that power. He does not have the power in regard to constables and I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. However, I understand that the Policing Board has already queried with the Chief Constable the scope for reducing the full period of training for experienced constables who join on a 50:50 basis. If the Chief Constable and the board want to put forward a proposal, certainly the Government would give it careful consideration and we can make a change through the regulations, not through the Act.
	We have met the 50:50 target for police trainees—I gave the figures before lunch—and we have met the 50:50 target for police support staff appointments since September last year. As I say, we are always willing to be as flexible as possible within the parameters of the policy principles we have adopted.
	As regards other secondments, it is possible under Section 98 of the Police Act 1996 to allow for secondment at all ranks from UK forces. I understand the concerns, but I do not believe that this is the mechanism to deal with them.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about atheists and others. At paragraph 15.10, the Patten report specifically recommended that recruitment be 50 per cent Catholic and 50 per cent Protestant or undetermined.
	I agree with what the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Glentoran, said about intimidation and the Patten report makes some strong comments on that. The Unionists and the SDLP have delivered in that regard and I repeat, as I have on so many other occasions, that it is for Sinn Fein also to join with the Roman Catholic hierarchy and encourage Roman Catholics generally to join the police force and serve the public in that way.
	The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, raised a particular question. I was aware at the time—it was about 12 months ago—of concerns but I have no information about current concerns. However, I shall research the matter and write to the noble Lord when I have material. I shall write to him even if there is no further material.
	I shall not get involved in the question of whether someone from the Wild West ought to be stationed in west Belfast—nor shall I speculate on whether such law officers in the Wild West would wish to volunteer.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that response. Between now and Third Reading I shall carry out more research into the matter to ascertain where we are and what is required. If it seems appropriate, I shall table a more satisfactory amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 18 [Fixed-term appointments]:
	[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]

Lord Smith of Clifton: moved Amendment No. 31:
	After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
	"DISCRIMINATION IN APPOINTMENTS: EXPIRY, RENEWAL AND REPEAL OF TEMPORARY PROVISIONS
	In section 47(3) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) (expiry, renewal and repeal of temporary provisions), for "three years" substitute "one year"."

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 31 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 32. The purpose of the first amendment resonates with what many noble Lords have said about the difficulties that the 50:50 recruitment process creates. We are all committed to it but we need to look at it fairly regularly in order to see whether and how it is operating. That is why we suggest an opportunity to monitor the situation and to discuss it annually instead of every three years, as provided in the original Act of 2000.
	Amendment No. 32 is tabled in order to give a designated end date so that all parties—not only political parties but also the agencies which are concerned with policing in Northern Ireland—have a fixed point beyond which, one hopes, it will not be necessary to extend the provision. The Patten report suggested that it should be for only eight years. Our amendment suggests 10 years, two more than envisaged by Patten. We are trying to reflect the report's original intention of ending the provision completely after 10 years because if, in the ninth year, it were extended by another three years it could roll on. We want to give a signal to all those people concerned with policing in Northern Ireland that it should definitely stop after 10 years. I beg to move.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I supported the first part of the amendment in Grand Committee. I see no reason to change my mind. It seems a sensible and useful amendment.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I sympathise with the motives and thinking which lie behind the amendments. There is already a good deal of flexibility. I remind the House that the first review will occur in the earlier part of 2004, so we are not far away.
	In Grand Committee, I said that an annual review would be cumbersome. I shall develop the reasons. The time it takes for applications to be made and recruitment to follow has been halved from the year or so it took pre-Patten to about six months. But that is only before recruits enter training. They spend 20 weeks at the foundation faculty obtaining an accredited qualification; they have another two months training in other policing skills; and they spend about 18 further months as probationer constables. Perhaps I put it clumsily, but in management terms a review every year could not work. Those figures underline the fact that having a review after not longer than three years—that is within the Secretary of State's power—is about right.
	We have had success. In each of the first four campaigns the applicants—I round up the figures—numbered 7,500, 4,900, 4,700 and 4,300. The levels of Roman Catholic applications are 35 per cent, 39 per cent, 35 per cent and 35 per cent. I believe that it would be ill-advised to tinker too much at this stage. I stress that the review must take place in not more than three years but the Secretary of State can have a review sooner than that.
	In paragraph 15.10 of the report, Patten states:
	"We believe that the ratio of recruits should be kept to 50:50, at least for the ten years of the model".
	Therefore, I repeat that I do sympathise with what the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, has said, but at this stage, we ought to leave things as they are.
	I can say, however, that when it comes to the review, I shall ensure—it may be a false assumption that I will still be doing this job—that there is ample time to look at these issues, which are intricate and important.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
	Clause 19 [Disclosure of information and holding of inquiries]:
	[Amendments Nos. 33 to 35 not moved.]
	Clause 20 [Police powers for designated police support staff]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 36:
	Page 12, line 10, leave out "subsection (1)" and insert "this section"

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 38 to 41, 43 to 50, 70 and 71, 73, 81 to 84 and 88 and 89. This is a substantial group of amendments, which have been designed to improve the wording of the Bill. The police have requested amendments to enable them to enter into contracts with the private sector for the provision of services relating to the detention or escort of persons who have been arrested or are otherwise in custody. The Chief Constable may then designate any person who is an employee of the contractor, either as a detention officer or an escort officer. Therefore, the amendments are in line with Section 39 of the Police Reform Act 2002.
	I repeat that this provision comes at the request of the Chief Constable. It will allow him to take forward proposals for greater civilianisation in the police service. I hope that that chimes with what noble Lords have said earlier. Possibly, one of the better consequences may be the freeing of police officers for other police duties. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: moved Amendment No. 37:
	Page 12, line 15, leave out "adequate" and insert "full"

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, we are back to words again. Clause 20 suggests that there should be some training for people who are police support staff. Subsection (2)(c) states that,
	"the person has received adequate training".
	The amendment would delete the word "adequate" and insert the word "full". There is a sense in which the word "adequate" is inadequate. The word is often prefaced by the word "barely", and barely adequate is certainly not correct.
	When we considered the matter in Committee, the noble and learned Lord suggested that the provision should be that the person had received the "appropriate" training, which would be a better word. My amendment would make it absolutely clear that those who are hired would have full training in the work that they are required to do. That would be far more appropriate and would give confidence that members of the police support staff are fully trained to do the work. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, said, this issue was raised in Committee. The Northern Ireland Office officials prudently anticipated that an amendment might be tabled at this stage. The NIO has sought reassurance from the Chief Constable that all designated persons will receive appropriate training that is fit for the purpose. I hope that that meets the concerns expressed by the noble Lord. As he knows, adequate training is replicated in the Police Reform Act. I hope that the fact that such a step has been taken, together with my categoric assurance on behalf of the Chief Constable, will meet the concerns of the noble Lord.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendments Nos. 38 to 41:
	Page 12, line 17, after "conferred" insert "or imposed"
	Page 12, line 18, leave out "designated person" and insert "person designated under this section"
	Page 12, line 21, after "designation" insert "under this section"
	Page 12, line 23, leave out "designated person" and insert "person designated under this section"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 42:
	Page 12, line 24, after "are" insert "any or all of"

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Clause 20(5) describes the powers and duties that are capable of being applied by designation. The amendment simply replicates the provisions in the Police Reform Act so that particular provisions of the schedule can be applied to the designated person. This is intended to give the Chief Constable flexibility in which provision should apply. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendments Nos. 43 to 49:
	Page 12, line 26, after "designated" insert "under this section"
	Page 12, line 27, after "designated" insert "under this section"
	Page 12, line 28, after "designated" insert "under this section"
	Page 12, line 29, leave out "designated person" and insert "person designated under this section"
	Page 12, line 36, leave out "designated person" and insert "person designated under this section"
	Page 13, line 1, leave out "designated person" and insert "person designated under this section"
	Page 13, line 8, leave out subsections (11) and (12).
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 50:
	After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
	"POLICE POWERS FOR DESIGNATED CONTRACTED-OUT STAFF
	(1) This section applies if the Board has entered into a contract with a person ("the contractor") for the provision of services relating to the detention or escort of persons who have been arrested or are otherwise in custody.
	(2) The Chief Constable may designate an employee of the contractor as an officer of either or both of these descriptions—
	(a) detention officer;
	(b) escort officer.
	(3) The Chief Constable may designate a person under this section only if he is satisfied that these requirements are met—
	(a) the person is a suitable person to carry out the functions for the purposes of which he is to be designated;
	(b) the person is capable of effectively carrying out those functions;
	(c) the person has received adequate training in the carrying out of those functions and in the exercise of the powers and performance of the duties to be conferred or imposed on him by his designation;
	(d) the contractor is a fit and proper person to supervise the carrying out of the functions for the purposes of which the person is to be designated.
	(4) A person designated under this section has—
	(a) the powers conferred on him by his designation;
	(b) the duties imposed on him by his designation.
	(5) A designation under this section may confer powers or impose duties on a person only by applying the powers or duties to him.
	(6) The powers and duties that may be applied to a person designated under this section by his designation are any or all of those specified in the applicable Part of Schedule 1.
	(7) The applicable Part of Schedule 1 is—
	(a) Part 2, in the case of a person designated under this section as a detention officer;
	(b) Part 3, in the case of a person designated under this section as an escort officer.
	(8) If a power is conferred or a duty imposed on a person designated under this section by his designation—
	(a) the power or duty does not authorise or require him to engage in any conduct otherwise than in the course of his employment as an employee of the contractor;
	(b) the power may be conferred or the duty imposed subject to restrictions or conditions specified in the designation.
	(9) Subsection (10) applies in relation to the exercise of a power by a person designated under this section in reliance on his designation if the power is one which, if exercised by a police officer, includes or is supplemented by a power to use reasonable force.
	(10) The designated person has the same entitlement to use reasonable force as a police officer would have if the power were exercised by him.
	(11) A designation under this section, unless it is previously withdrawn or ceases to have effect under subsection (12), shall remain in force for such period as may be specified in the designation; but it may be renewed at any time with effect from the time when it would otherwise expire.
	(12) A designation under this section shall cease to have effect—
	(a) if the designated person ceases to be an employee of the contractor; or
	(b) if the contract between the Board and the contractor is terminated or expires."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [Powers exercisable by designated police support staff]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendments Nos. 51 to 53:
	Page 16, line 10, leave out from "arrest)" to end of line.
	Page 16, line 12, leave out "any such"
	Page 16, line 20, leave out from second "person)" to "as" in line 21.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in moving Amendments Nos. 51 to 53, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 56 and 57, 59 to 61, 63 and 64, 66 to 68 and 72.
	These amendments will remove references to "relevant police area" in the Bill. Because of the Bill's limited extent, it is sufficient to restrict the exercise of the powers in question to Northern Ireland, despite the fact that the powers are conferred by statute with a United Kingdom extent. The "relevant police area" references replicate the Police Reform Act when it might be necessary to move a prisoner from one constabulary area to another within England and Wales. Because there is only one police area in Northern Ireland, that phrase is not appropriate. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendments Nos. 54 and 55:
	Page 20, line 7, at end insert—
	"(2) Article 5 of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/1987 (N.I. 20)) (consequences of failure by arrested person to account for objects etc.) applies (without prejudice to the effect of any designation applying paragraph 8A) in the case of a person arrested in exercise of the power exercisable by virtue of this paragraph as it applies in the case of a person arrested by a constable." Page 20, line 33, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"Power to require arrested person to account for certain matters
	8A Where a designation applies this paragraph to a person—
	(a) he has the powers of a constable under Articles 5(1)(c) and 6(1)(c) of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/1987 (N.I. 20)) to request a person who has been arrested by a constable or by a person to whom paragraph 7 applies to account for the presence of an object, substance or mark or for the presence of the arrested person at a particular place; and
	(b) the references to a constable in Articles 5(1)(b) and (c) and (4) and 6(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of that Order accordingly include references to the person to whom this paragraph is applied."

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the purpose of the amendments is to apply Articles 5 and 6 of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 to designated investigating officers. Those powers replicate the powers given to designated officers in England and Wales under the Police Reform Act 2002. It was initially thought that there was no equivalent to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act in Northern Ireland legislation. However, we have subsequently discovered that this is not the case in that equivalent provisions are contained in Articles 5 and 6, to which I referred. These amendments enable a designated investigating officer to question a convicted person under those articles about facts which may be attributable to the person's participation in the offence—for example, presence at a particular place at a relevant time or the presence of potentially incriminating objects such as a mark. They may also warn the suspect about the capacity of the court to draw adverse inferences.
	The effect of Amendment No. 54 is that a court may draw similar inferences in the case of a person arrested by a designated person under paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendments Nos. 56 and 57:
	Page 20, line 44, leave out "in the relevant police area"
	Page 21, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 58:
	Page 21, line 33, leave out paragraph 13.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Amendment No. 91 is also in this group.
	Noble Lords will recall that in Committee I promised to look again at this matter to make it explicit that so far as concerns civilians, only doctors or nurses could be involved in this work. It was never our intention that civilians other than doctors or nurses would be involved in this work. To clarify this matter, I propose to amend Article 56 of the PACE order by means of this new clause.
	I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, is unable to be present today. I pay tribute to the fact that she was alert enough to find this ambiguity. I hope that I have pleased noble Lords by putting it right. I beg to move.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, we are grateful for the amendment and will pass the Minister's kind words to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendments Nos. 59 to 61:
	Page 22, line 14, leave out "in the relevant police area"
	Page 22, line 41, leave out "in the relevant police area"
	Page 23, line 10, leave out "in the relevant police area"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 63:
	Page 24, line 5, leave out "in the relevant police area"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 68:
	Page 24, line 7, leave out "in that or any other police area"
	Page 24, line 8, leave out "or" and insert—
	"(aa) from that police station to any other place that is specified by the custody officer;" Page 24, line 11, leave out "in that area or in another police area"
	Page 24, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
	Page 24, line 20, leave out "or (2)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendments Nos. 70 to 72:
	Page 25, line 4, leave out "20(1)" and insert "20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff)"
	Page 25, line 5, leave out "20(1)" and insert "20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff)"
	Page 25, leave out lines 8 and 9.
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 21 [Designated police support staff: amendments]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 73:
	Page 13, line 13, leave out "section 20" and insert "sections 20 and (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 74:
	After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
	"DESIGNATIONS: SUPPLEMENTARY
	(1) Subsection (2) applies if, in reliance on his designation under section 20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff), a person exercises or performs a power or duty in relation to another or purports to do so.
	(2) The designated person must produce his designation to the other if requested to do so.
	(3) A failure to comply with subsection (2) does not make the exercise or performance of the power or duty invalid.
	(4) The Chief Constable may at any time modify or withdraw a person's designation under section 20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff) by notice to him.
	(5) If the Chief Constable modifies or withdraws a person's designation under section (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff), he must send a copy of the notice of the modification or withdrawal to the contractor responsible for supervising the designated person in the carrying out of the functions for the purposes of which the designation was granted.
	(6) In subsection (5) "contractor" means a person who has entered into a contract with the Board such as is mentioned in section (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff) (1)."

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Amendment No. 74 is to include the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. The purpose of this clause is to replicate supplementary provisions contained in Section 42 of the Police Reform Act 2002 which were not in the draft Bill.
	The effect is to give the Chief Constable powers to modify or withdraw a designation at any time. If the Chief Constable withdraws the designation of a contracted-out individual, he must notify the relevant contractor and, further, require the designated person to produce his designation on request.
	It makes clear that a failure to comply with such a request does not make the exercise or performance of that power or duty invalid. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 75:
	After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
	"COMPLAINTS AND MISCONDUCT
	(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the handling of—
	(a) complaints relating to the carrying out by a person designated under section 20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff) of any of the functions mentioned in subsection (2);
	(b) instances of misconduct involving the carrying out by such a person of any of those functions.
	(2) The functions are those for the purposes of which any power or duty is conferred or imposed on the person by his designation.
	(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular provide that any provision of Part 7 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (c. 32) is to apply, with such modifications as may be prescribed by the regulations, with respect to persons designated under section 20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff).
	(4) Before making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—
	(a) the Ombudsman;
	(b) the Board;
	(c) the Chief Constable;
	(d) the Police Association;
	(e) any other person or body appearing to him to have an interest in the matter."

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, after Clause 21 I propose the insertion of this new clause. This is to give the ombudsman power to deal from commencement with complaints against designated civilians, including contracted-out staff, given that they will be exercising limited police powers as outlined in Schedule 1 to the Bill.
	At present, in England and Wales complaints against police authority employed support staff are handled at the discretion of chief officers, but when the new complaints system comes into force on 1st April 2004 all police authority employees will have an extended complaints regime.
	We do not at present see the case for further extending the ombudsman's remit for investigating complaints against civilians employed by the Chief Constable beyond those of designated powers, as to the reason I have given. They will be exercising limited police powers and, therefore, should fall appropriately within the ombudsman's remit. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 76:
	After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
	"LIABILITY FOR UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
	(1) For the purposes of determining liability for the unlawful conduct of employees of the Board, conduct by an employee of the Board in reliance or purported reliance on a designation under section 20 must be taken to be conduct in the course of his employment by the Board; and, in the case of a tort, the Board accordingly falls to be treated as a joint tortfeasor.
	(2) For the purposes of determining liability for the unlawful conduct of persons employed in the civil service, conduct by such a person in reliance or purported reliance on a designation under section 20 must be taken to be conduct in the course of his employment in the civil service; and, in the case of a tort, the Department of Finance and Personnel accordingly falls to be treated as a joint tortfeasor.
	(3) For the purposes of determining liability for the unlawful conduct of employees of a contractor, conduct by such an employee in reliance or purported reliance on a designation under section (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff) must be taken to be conduct in the course of his employment by the contractor; and, in the case of a tort, the contractor accordingly falls to be treated as a joint tortfeasor.
	(4) In subsection (3) "contractor" means a person who has entered into a contract with the Board such as is mentioned in section (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff) (1)."

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the amendment relates to liability for unlawful conduct. It is intended to replicate a supplementary provision contained in Section 42 of the Police Reform Act 2002; namely,
	"for the purpose of determining liability for unlawful conduct in that conduct in reliance of a designation shall be taken as conduct in the course of employment by the designated person's employer—whether that be the Board, civil service or contractor".
	I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 77:
	After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
	"NOTIFIABLE MEMBERSHIPS
	(1) Section 51 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) (notifiable memberships of police officers) applies in relation to persons designated under section 20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff) as it applies in relation to police officers.
	(2) As so applied, that section has effect as if the reference in subsection (1) to the duties of a police officer were to the functions for the purposes of which any power or duty is conferred or imposed on a person by his designation under section 20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff)."

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to apply Section 51 of the 2000 Act, notifiable memberships, to designated police support staff, including contracted-out staff. These individuals are exercising limited police powers and it is right and proper that Section 51 should apply. I am able to say that the Chief Constable agrees with this view. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 78:
	After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
	"CODE OF ETHICS
	(1) The Secretary of State may by order apply the code of ethics issued by the Board under section 52 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) to persons designated under section 20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff).
	(2) An order under subsection (1) may apply the code with such modifications as are specified in the order.
	(3) If an order is made under subsection (1) applying the code to a person designated under section 20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff) he must be guided by the code as it applies to him in carrying out the functions for the purposes of which any power or duty is conferred or imposed on him by his designation."

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the amendment is designed to give the Secretary of State the power by order to extend the application of Section 52 of the 2000 Act, the Code of Ethics, to designated support staff, including contracted-out staff.
	The code—I understand that the board intends to publish it in the near future—has provisions relating to integrity, behaviour and the care of those persons in detention. These have a direct read-across to duties undertaken by civilians. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Designated police support staff: amendments]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 79:
	Page 25, line 29, leave out "only"

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 80.
	At present, paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 2 specify that the powers in question—taking fingerprints and non-intimate samples—are currently excisable only by a constable. The provisions of the PACE (Northern Ireland) Order to which these refer are silent as to who may exercise the powers. Having clarified the position under the order, paragraphs 14 and 17 of Schedule 1 to the Bill then enable those powers to be conferred on a designated person. The amendment is designed to remove ambiguity and introduce clarity. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendments Nos. 80 to 84:
	Page 25, line 33, leave out "only"
	Page 26, line 2, leave out "20(1)" and insert "20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff)"
	Page 26, line 11, leave out "20(1)" and insert "20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff)"
	Page 26, line 19, leave out "20(1)" and insert "20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff)"
	Page 26, line 27, leave out "20(1)" and insert "20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 22 [Assaults on, and obstruction of, designated police support staff]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendments Nos. 85 to 87:
	Page 13, line 25, leave out "(4)" and insert "(3)"
	Page 13, line 26, leave out "(5)" and insert "(3A)"
	Page 13, line 30, leave out "(6)" and insert "(3B)"

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the amendments put right drafting errors. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 88:
	Page 13, line 31, leave out "20(1)" and insert "20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 23 [Impersonation etc. of designated police support staff]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 89:
	Page 14, line 8, leave out "20(1)" and insert "20 or (Police powers for designated contracted-out staff)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 90:
	After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
	"DESIGNATED PERSONS: INTERPRETATION
	(1) This section applies for the interpretation of sections 20 to 23.
	(2) "Conduct" includes omissions and statements.
	(3) Expressions used in those sections and in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) have the same meanings in those sections as they have in that Act."

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Amendment No. 90 is a drafting amendment to bring about a more effective interpretation. It provides for the definition of conduct which is taken from the Police Reform Act 2002. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 91:
	Before Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
	"INTIMATE SEARCHES
	(1) In Article 56 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12)) (intimate searches) after paragraph (5) insert—
	"(5A) A person may use reasonable force, if necessary, in carrying out an intimate search as mentioned in paragraph (4) or (5)."
	(2) Subsection (1) comes into force in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 24 [Persons authorised to take intimate samples]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 92:
	Page 14, line 39, leave out subsections (7) and (8).

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 92, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 93. The purpose of the amendment is to amend a drafting error to reflect that subordinate legislation relating to policing is made by statutory rule and not statutory instrument, an elementary error spotted by all of your Lordships. Amendment No. 93 clarifies the position. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 93:
	Before Clause 26, insert the following new clause—
	"ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
	(1) Any power of the Secretary of State to make orders or regulations under this Act is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (1979 N.I. 12).
	(2) Orders or regulations under this Act—
	(a) may make different provision for different purposes;
	(b) may include supplementary, incidental, saving or transitional provisions.
	(3) A statutory rule made under this Act (other than one containing an order under section (Intimate searches)(2) or 24(6)) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in like manner as a statutory instrument and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (c. 36) applies accordingly."
	On Question amendment agreed to.

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 94:
	After Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
	"COMMENCEMENT
	(1) This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
	(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to this section or to sections 27 and 28.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I apologise for the late tabling of this amendment. Throughout the Grand Committee debates, I frequently referred to the appropriateness of the timing of various matters in the Bill. I know that the amendment's wording is not quite right. When we took it to the Clerks' Department, they told us that it was not acceptable in its present format and there was some rather hasty editing. I wanted the date of the commencement of the Bill to be debated.
	Throughout our consideration of the Bill, I have made it clear that I disagree with the Government on timing. With the decommissioning process incomplete, we should like Section 3 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 satisfied and verified by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning before any of the provisions come into force. With half the executive still not behind the Policing Board, I am disinclined to push through more technical legislation on policing. The bottom line is that we are, as I have said earlier, putting the people of Northern Ireland at risk by taking chances with their policing. If the Bill and other measures are implemented, we shall have in place a superb set of policing structures for a normal, quiet and peaceful, dare I say, Surrey-like society.
	I give notice that I intend to withdraw the amendment today, but that I shall return to the matter at Third Reading. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, on the basis of what the noble Lord has helpfully said, it is probably better if I respond to his detailed argument when he returns to the subject at Third Reading. I undertake to do that.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [HL]

Report received.
	House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past four o'clock.